Donald Trump Slams Globalism in Trade Speech

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
Oh come now. Led by example? Manufacturing has been driven out, good luck finding much of it.

And a trade embargo or tariff is not going to force its return.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
That's great for you and I who can afford a higher quality product made elsewhere... the problem is the economy here has been destroyed by allowing the open flow of cheap crap from elsewhere. Now people that work here are more and more frequently being financially locked out of making that decision.

The reality is not everybody here can be an engineer or a skilled worker. We need to maintain a higher quality of living for the working class.

So which is it? Do you want cheap junk from China to keep the proletariat happy or do you want an embargo or tariffs to try and force manufacturing back? You cannot butter your bread on both sides.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
Oh come now. Led by example? Manufacturing has been driven out, good luck finding much of it.

And a trade embargo or tariff is not going to force its return.

What is entirely missed here is the intent isn't to return all those jobs and industries back to the U.S.. We are nowhere near capable of it at this juncture.

The goal is to stop further manufacturing job loss to foreign nations.

One step at a time...stop the bleeding of MORE industries.

Boeing, Ford, GM and Carrier are four recent Corporations that have announced plans to further export our jobs. NONE are suffering financially. All are making profits and are successful doing what they do now in the U.S.. They are attempting to increase the profit margins. Nothing more.

One 'could' use industry specific tariffs placed on those firms intending to move out of the U.S.. Perhaps reversing the insane law that taxes Corporations 30% if they bring their profits back to the U.S. but zero tax if those monies stay outside the U.S..

Tax them for keeping the money outside the U.S. instead. The flow reverses and internal expansion is forced on those Corporations to avoid further regional taxes....jobs increase in that wise without trade wars of any kind.

Then, and only then improve/level the playing field for a slow but steady future growth of manufacturing in the U.S..

Not difficult whatsoever....


P.S. 'Free Trade' is as fraudulent a concept as Marx or Ayn Rand. Great in theory, garbage in reality...

originally posted by: xpert11
a reply to: xuenchen

Trump doesn't strike me as having a great desire to become president.

He doesn't.

But, that's why he'll win.

We always get what we don't really want.

Hillary really wants to be president, that's why she loses.

For Trump, being president will "tie up his life" for the next 4 years.

The most precious commodity in this world is "time."

Nobody appreciates that more than the "rich."

With all the money in the world, they still can't buy more "time."

As an investor, the rich appreciate being able to make the right financial decisions at the right time.

But, to do that, they have "to be available" to spot the opportunities, and grab them when they appear.

If Trump is tied up with business of state, he has no time to be watching for money making opportunities.

It a loss for him.

However, there is one way that Trump can turn the Presidency into a win. That is if he can lower taxes.

So, Trump is in "two minds" right now.

He really ran to increase his name exposure, as a former "Presidential Candidate", that raises his status in the world of the global elite. Former Presidential Candidate opens new Golf Club...etc..Sounds good. It's like getting another title like "Knight" , or "Lord", to boost one's personal image. Helps with marketing your financial brand.

But actually being President, is mostly a negative from an investment point of view. It also reduces his freedom of travel. He has to have security for the rest of his life. It will remove a lot of freedom he enjoys right now. Poor Bush junior can't even visit Canada, which is the most friendly nation on earth to the USA. So, nothing is gained for Trump by being President, except if he can reduce the tax rate for all his investments.

Hence, Trump tries to be as ridiculous as possible to not make it through the gates. But, God has other plans. He's going to win.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Boeing, Ford, GM and Carrier are four recent Corporations that have announced plans to further export our jobs. NONE are suffering financially. All are making profits and are successful doing what they do now in the U.S.. They are attempting to increase the profit margins. Nothing more.

The converse on this holds true as well. Do you want the foreign companies that manufacture here to cease their production and pull those jobs back home? All the major auto manufacturers have plants here in the United States.

One 'could' use industry specific tariffs placed on those firms intending to move out of the U.S..

What is to stop other countries from imposing similar or harsher tariffs on our exports?

Perhaps reversing the insane law that taxes Corporations 30% if they bring their profits back to the U.S. but zero tax if those monies stay outside the U.S..

How about fixing our corporate tax structure so it is more inline with other countries. We are one of two nations that double taxes profits and have the highest corporate rate.

says the guy with chinese ties

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I will try this again..I'm not talking returning industries that have already left. Stop the bleeding of further industry is the first step.


If other nations have a problem with retaining industries still here and cease existing manufacturing in the U.S., that would be a virtual economic attack on the U.S.. IF that occurred-and I do not believe it would, if for no other reason than those countries require a somewhat successful and affluent U.S.
to continue profiting from- then they would be the eventual losers in a trade war as the U.S. imports far more than it exports, manufacturing-wise. Especially if it was with China as there are alternate nations with equally cheap products to purchase from.


Our Corporate tax structure goes hand in hand with individual income tax which is lower than most other countries, The corporate tax structure can be addressed, as you say, but why in God's name are we forcing our Corporations to invest outside the U.S. when many want the monies here??? It's flat out insane.


The CEO of Coke did an epic rant on the subject around a year ago of so.


Once again, the 'potential' tariff would be assigned to a U.S. Corporation intending to build outside the U.S.. Not to a specific nation. If they choose to do the same to the U.S. then sobeit. It is blatantly obvious that the current movement is a drain on the U.S.. Besides, there isn't exactly a rush of Foreign industry moving to the U.S.. Mostly smart moves to protect themselves from retaliatory action by the U.S.. After all it IS more expensive to manufacture here...why else do it?


From what I can see, you seem against any action that even levels the playing field. WHY? Surly continuing in the direction we are going is economic suicide....unless one is in some form of symbiotic relation to the 'big boys'....Vested interest?

a reply to: xuenchen

Of course he's telling the truth it's how he made his billions.

Look at the micro cosm in your local community.

The same construction companies always get the big contracts for the city, the same towing company get's called for the police departments and so on and so forth.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
If other nations have a problem with retaining industries still here and cease existing manufacturing in the U.S., that would be a virtual economic attack on the U.S..

And how would imposing trade embargoes or tariffs on other countries not be constituted as the same thing by them?

IF that occurred-and I do not believe it would, if for no other reason than those countries require a somewhat successful and affluent U.S.
to continue profiting from- then they would be the eventual losers in a trade war as the U.S.

Do you know who the immediate losers are in any trade war? The people. The issue with China is not the trade aspect, it is their currency manipulation. Punishing the American consumer does not address that issue.

...why in God's name are we forcing our Corporations to invest outside the U.S. when many want the monies here??? It's flat out insane.

No idea. Considering the end user (us) pays all corporate taxes since they are factored into the finished cost of goods or services I am for as low a corporate rate as possible.

Once again, the 'potential' tariff would be assigned to a U.S. Corporation intending to build outside the U.S..

Guess what you get then? Less United States corporations, they all move overseas at their soonest convenience. It is already happening with companies looking for foreign partners to merge with so they can relocate their headquarters elsewhere.

From what I can see, you seem against any action that even levels the playing field. WHY? Surly continuing in the direction we are going is economic suicide....unless one is in some form of symbiotic relation to the 'big boys'....Vested interest?

I am not for punishing the citizenry. Companies move all them time. Do you want New York penalizing companies, and by default their customers, that move to Colorado? This is the same thing only writ larger. The world markets are integrated and there is no putting the genie back in the bottle now. You talk of a 'level playing field', our corporate taxes put us on a very unlevel field vis a vis where these companies are relocating to currently. Address that.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Fine. If you feel Corporate taxes are a major issue, be specific. Federal? State? Local/county? Disability, workers comp, ?

Sorry, but the lowest common denominator isn't in the interests of the U.S..

We really can't control what China does with their own currency, it IS their currency. (other than retaliatory tariffs, that is).

OK. Then go radical and leave the WTO. Place incremental tariffs on all inbound manufactured goods from nations with low waged employees. Say 10% every six months up to 30%. Use the tariffs collected to compensate those few remaining exporting Corporations and assist in retooling/expanding to replace those previously imported goods no longer arriving.

Once again, the four companies I cited are not suffering financially. They merely want higher profit margins. To 'satisfy' that you'd LOWER their tax rates?? Great. We can increase the personal tax rates to compensate...like that's going to fly.

When a company is run by it's CFO and the unending demand for increasing quarterly profits, the response should be "continue and your expenses will go up...not down". Be those expenses in the form of individual tariffs or some other form.

These guys have zero loyalty to the U.S.. They should receive the same back....zero loyalty.

Hard ball....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Federal?

Federal.

Sorry, but the lowest common denominator isn't in the interests of the U.S.

Who are you to say what is in the best interest of another citizen? And what do you mean by 'the lowest common denominator in the context of this discussion?

We really can't control what China does with their own currency, it IS their currency. (other than retaliatory tariffs, that is).

Economic sanctions can be applied without affecting trade.

OK. Then go radical and leave the WTO. Place incremental tariffs on all inbound manufactured goods from nations with low waged employees. Say 10% every six months up to 30%. Use the tariffs collected to compensate those few remaining exporting Corporations and assist in retooling/expanding to replace those previously imported goods no longer arriving.

As you were typing this you must have realized how totally unrealistic and unimplementable this plan would be.

Once again, the four companies I cited are not suffering financially. They merely want higher profit margins. To 'satisfy' that you'd LOWER their tax rates?? Great. We can increase the personal tax rates to compensate...like that's going to fly.

I have no issue raising taxes on the very wealthy. As for higher profit margins, that is the goal of every business, it certainly was with mine.

These guys have zero loyalty to the U.S.. They should receive the same back....zero loyalty.

Which only drives them away quicker.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Federal?

Federal.

Sorry, but the lowest common denominator isn't in the interests of the U.S.

Who are you to say what is in the best interest of another citizen? And what do you mean by 'the lowest common denominator in the context of this discussion?

We really can't control what China does with their own currency, it IS their currency. (other than retaliatory tariffs, that is).

Economic sanctions can be applied without affecting trade.

OK. Then go radical and leave the WTO. Place incremental tariffs on all inbound manufactured goods from nations with low waged employees. Say 10% every six months up to 30%. Use the tariffs collected to compensate those few remaining exporting Corporations and assist in retooling/expanding to replace those previously imported goods no longer arriving.

As you were typing this you must have realized how totally unrealistic and unimplementable this plan would be.

Once again, the four companies I cited are not suffering financially. They merely want higher profit margins. To 'satisfy' that you'd LOWER their tax rates?? Great. We can increase the personal tax rates to compensate...like that's going to fly.

I have no issue raising taxes on the very wealthy. As for higher profit margins, that is the goal of every business, it certainly was with mine.

These guys have zero loyalty to the U.S.. They should receive the same back....zero loyalty.

Which only drives them away quicker.

Who am I to say?? I've seen what we've had and where we are! Who are YOU to question ME?? I'm only one person. Apparently the numbers that feel similarly are increasing as we speak.

Economic sanctions can be applied without affecting trade?? Really?? That's basically all I've suggested to our own Corporations that wish to further leave the U.S.. You've point out other nations would retaliate and trade would be effected as a result?

That sounds contradictory. Please clarify.

I am not a socialist. I have no loyalty to any Corporation either. MY loyalty lies with the U.S.A.. The current Corporate system is a clear and present danger to the U.S..

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Apologies, I missed responding to your lowest common denominator question.

That was to your lowering corporate taxes at the Federal(?) level. To match/compete with whom? Nations with lower ones, one would assume. Where does that one end? Those nations further lower their's and the now new pressure to even further increase profit margins by 'our' corporations demand new and further 'concessions' from our gov't?

So the lowest common denominator would be the nations with the lowest equivalent corporate tax.

Sorry , but merely a new 'slippery slope' with the Corporate tail wagging the dog....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Economic sanctions can be applied without affecting trade?? Really?? That's basically all I've suggested to our own Corporations that wish to further leave the U.S.. You've point out other nations would retaliate and trade would be effected as a result?

I am referring to sanctions against a particular nation for currency manipulation, not against specific companies. Sanctioning specific nations for having more favorable manufacturing parameters is not what I am referring to.

I am not a socialist. I have no loyalty to any Corporation either. MY loyalty lies with the U.S.A.. The current Corporate system is a clear and present danger to the U.S..

They are operating within a system created by our government. If the systems else where are more favorable they take advantage of that much the same way you would if your neighboring state offered a more favorable earning situation for you with all other things being equal.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
That was to your lowering corporate taxes at the Federal(?) level. To match/compete with whom? Nations with lower ones, one would assume. Where does that one end?

Preferably at zero. Corporations do not pay taxes, the end user does, they are only a pass through. When people yell, 'Tax the corporations', what they are really yelling is, 'Tax me!'.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


Again what economic sanctions that would affect trade to you refer to?


I agree with created by the gov't. To who's benefit, I ask?

OK, Here's a thought. Instead of lowering the U.S. Corporate tax rate-which likely draw a lowered one by the targeted nation/s in return- force a higher tax in the countries in question.

For example, let's say the People's Republic of Serfdom has a corporate tax 8 points lower than the U.S.. We pass a 'Fair Trade Act', cough, cough, that mandates a fee/tariff that matches that difference. In this case 8%.


I surmise, there are three possible responses. First is much rhetoric with no retaliatory act. Second is some form of retaliation outside the scope of Corporate taxes. Keeping in mind a trade war would be viewed as even worse by the exporting nation/s than in the U.S.. Third is their gov't sees the U.S. gaining 8% that they themselves should have raked in. They then increase their Corporate rate by that 8% thereby gaining that revenue and causing the U.S. to now lose it.

Net result a leveler playing field for our Corporations without the revenue loss of lowering our own rate.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I agree it's the end user that pays and not the Corporation. That is obvious.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Again what economic sanctions that would affect trade to you refer to?

Sanctions of sovereign investments or holdings.

I agree with created by the gov't. To who's benefit, I ask?

Lobbyists, their clients and politicians.

OK, Here's a thought. Instead of lowering the U.S. Corporate tax rate-which likely draw a lowered one by the targeted nation/s in return- force a higher tax in the countries in question.

It would be easier to lower one (ours) than even attempt to raise everyone else's since we are the highest.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

"Sanctions of sovereign investments or holdings"....please cite an example or two....

Lobbyists? OK. Their clients? Of course! How do the politicians 'gain'?

This link provides how constrained corporations were after the revolution. No 'Free Trade'? Really? The only way politicians 'gained', as you say was monetarily. Either while still in office or following it.

reclaimdemocracy.org...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
So which is it? Do you want cheap junk from China to keep the proletariat happy or do you want an embargo or tariffs to try and force manufacturing back? You cannot butter your bread on both sides.

You've made enough good points since my post that I'm feeling were actually of the same opinion. Not going to argue.

But let us not compare a governmental official betraying the people of the country with a business man doing business.

The premise under which their money was made is not the same... and to say that Trump is a hypocrite for being a business man who made the most he can, while Hillary has made her money while spending a great deal of time as a public servant, is not the same.

I'ma civil servant and have been for a while. I have never done anything to benefit myself while holding this position. I have, in fact, done several things that were difficult for me and put me in precarious positions in order to protect the public. I have defended the public from threats from their own government costing me much scrutiny. I have offered to help indigent people and non-profit entities, completely outside my job requirements, and denied even the most trivial of compensation from them for it except for their thanks. Which I did with humility. I did not set up a foundation that could accept their gratitude, tax free, while I stayed clean.

Hillary Clinton has an organization that is set up which can accept donations from those who benefited from her very high level position in the federal government. This is disgusting to me. Having accepted oaths I find it abhorrent that somebody would use their position to benefit in such a way. I can excuse a business man practicing business. I cannot excuse the blatant display of disregard for an oath to public service.

Trump may be a #head. A lot of nationally powerful business men are, but he never took an oath to me and she did. She betrayed ME... personally. As a leader of my country.