Can Trumps economic plan work?

[hollodero]

I ask in honest interest. I can't tell, but I wonder.
It actually seems that automobile companies now intend to move back from Mexico to the US and produce there. They claim it has nothing to do with possible tariffs, but it seems more than just coincidental that these decisions are taking place now - even though the Mexican automobile business is obviously flourishing.

And never mind the environmental impact (because who does), can getting rid of regulations, digging out coal under American soil, decreasing taxation for companies and threatening with high tariffs really lead to more jobs? More wealth, even?
Or (I think that's possible) will the wage level shrink, getting closer to Mexican standards? Will the tariffs lead to less exports, hence not decreasing the trade deficit and eating up the possible positive effects by shrinking total production?

Economics is my weakest foot (well, one of the weak ones at least), so you could really form my opinion here. What an opportunity! I also don't want to mention or talk about the effect that taking jobs back from Mexico might increase the migration pressure and a flourishing neighbour would be the best way to decrease immigration. Because I heard you already got a wall in store for that very reason. And I simply wonder about the "domestic" success here.

So enlighten me. If you please.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-09-2017, 11:50 PM)hollodero Wrote: I ask in honest interest. I can't tell, but I wonder.
It actually seems that automobile companies now intend to move back from Mexico to the US and produce there. They claim it has nothing to do with possible tariffs, but it seems more than just coincidental that these decisions are taking place now - even though the Mexican automobile business is obviously flourishing.

And never mind the environmental impact (because who does), can getting rid of regulations, digging out coal under American soil, decreasing taxation for companies and threatening with high tariffs really lead to more jobs? More wealth, even?
Or (I think that's possible) will the wage level shrink, getting closer to Mexican standards? Will the tariffs lead to less exports, hence not decreasing the trade deficit and eating up the possible positive effects by shrinking total production?

Economics is my weakest foot (well, one of the weak ones at least), so you could really form my opinion here. What an opportunity! I also don't want to mention or talk about the effect that taking jobs back from Mexico might increase the migration pressure and a flourishing neighbour would be the best way to decrease immigration. Because I heard you already got a wall in store for that very reason. And I simply wonder about the "domestic" success here.

So enlighten me. If you please.

I don't know. My crystal ball is in the shop. But, the tough talk on outsourcing is just posturing IMO until his own companies shift jobs back to the US. Last I read, the GM CEO said they weren't changing anything about their plan despite Trump taking ng classes credit again. Really that stuff and the twitter rants just seem like distractions to the other moves he is making. I have mixed feelings towards his Cabinet nominees regarding security type positions. Some I like, some not so much. But, the nominations related to more domestic positions seem like a business man looking to gut regulations on his businesses. Faustian bargain. 

[JustWinBaby]

(01-10-2017, 12:20 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: But, the tough talk on outsourcing is just posturing IMO until his own companies shift jobs back to the US.

Oh?  How many jobs has Trump moved overseas that he needs to "shift back"?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-10-2017, 12:25 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Oh?  How many jobs has Trump moved overseas that he needs  to "shift back"?

Seriously?

[hollodero]

(01-10-2017, 12:25 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Oh?  How many jobs has Trump moved overseas that he needs  to "shift back"?

Hm. Even I know that Trump apparels are mainly made in all kinds of Asian countries. Very short research also showed that TrumpHome manufactures furniture in Turkey that is distributed from Toronto. There seem to be many more instances.

Idk if these jobs ever were in the US and hence if he could shift them "back". But he sure produces all over the world, as every other big manufacturer probably does.

Honestly, I didn't care too much about Trump's personal integrity in this question, though. He said he did go overseas because he can and that as a businessman under the current laws it was the responsible thing to do. To which I'd say, fair enough. Those were not his laws. He might change these laws, move his own jobs to the US, I'd say it's too soon to evaluate his personal business decisions there.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-10-2017, 12:51 AM)hollodero Wrote: Hm. Even I know that Trump apparels are mainly made in all kinds of Asian countries. Very short research also showed that TrumpHome manufactures furniture in Turkey that is distributed from Toronto. There seem to be many more instances.

Idk if these jobs ever were in the US and hence if he could shift them "back". But he sure produces all over the world, as every other big manufacturer probably does.

Honestly, I didn't care too much about Trump's personal integrity in this question, though. He said he did go overseas because he can and that as a businessman under the current laws it was the responsible thing to do. To which I'd say, fair enough. Those were not his laws. He might change these laws, move his own jobs to the US, I'd say it's too soon to evaluate his personal business decisions there.

He should go back to trolling about all the climate change studies he has read which indicate it is a fraud, but won't share. And according to his understanding of the scientific method he needs to know what I think about someone else's research before he can show why someone else's evidence based conclusions are wrong. LOL

[Benton]

lot of questions. Some of the things he's advocated (higher tariffs) I'm personally in favor of. Cheap foreign made goods have flooded our market for decades. Low quality, but people dont care. They just look at the price in store. In theory, higher tariffs will help. But most likely, our elected officials will tack on exemptions for whoever bribes then the most. Maybe cars, maybe clothes.

one thing with manufacturing. Trump is hitting it at the right time. Mostly thanks to GOP legislation like right to work and prevailing wage removal, salaries are going down. American workers are working more, making less. Manufacturers are looking for that.

the problem they run into is, the price of goods isn't going down, so they end up having a hard time finding workers who put up with manufacturing work (long hours, sometimes harsh conditions) for little money. We've got a couple plants in my area that pay 10-12$ an hour. Doesn't matter if you've been there a day or a decade. They can't keep help when they're essentially competing with WalMart who pays a dollar or two less, but their workers qualify for federal and state benefits.

so it could be timing finds a lot of manufacturers looking to return to the us to take advantage of a cheaper workforce, combined with GOP -led state legislatures that are good with piling money on them to come (or stay). Once that cash runs out, and once they have to increase wages to get workers, the jobs will move again. 

[hollodero]

(01-10-2017, 01:31 AM)Benton Wrote: so it could be timing finds a lot of manufacturers looking to return to the us to take advantage of a cheaper workforce, combined with GOP -led state legislatures that are good with piling money on them to come (or stay). Once that cash runs out, and once they have to increase wages to get workers, the jobs will move again. 

Interesting post, sorry for only adressing that last part. This might be an interesting question - what are american workers willing to accept. I know of some examples back in Europe. A big manufacturer (I want to say VW, but not sure anymore) once told their personnel point blank, listen, you either take a paycut and forgo some of the benefits you would be entitled to, or we move to whereever and you're unemployed. And people ate it up. In a glazier's workshop in my home town I shortly worked in (never do that, btw.) the staff was also told, accept a massive paycut or Slovakians are more than willing to take your job for even less pay. And some ate that up, too (although there were mainly Slovakians when I was there, so probably not all of them did). These are frightening examples somehow. 
How desperate are people?
These instances happened in welfare states, where unemployment isn't an immediate existential threat. The US worker might be even more susceptible to blackmail of that kind - even regarding "returning" jobs. That's one of the questions things might boil down to - not only whether jobs go back to the US, but what kind of jobs those would be. I guess most Americans don't want to do a Mexican's work for a Mexican's pay - but they might feel forced to do so. Minimum wage is not likely to happen under the GOP, so there really is little limit to that apart from the worker's unwillingness to accept low wages. And how are those people percieved then. Here it's "freeloaders" and that's the end of the discussion.

Now additionally, your unemployment rate is way below that in Europe - but Detroit et al. sure are exceptions. I don't know what Detroit residents are willing to take. But if companies go back there, it might not lead to increased wealth, but to some kind of inner-state favela city where people just make enough to somehow survive. That I think is not that unrealistic.

Now in addition to tariffs - will the domestic market really be sufficient for the manufactured products? For one thing is quite clear. When you imply tariffs, it will be a double-edged sword, there will be a counterreaction. For countries like China or India - where a huge population might be on the leap to becoming wealthy and hence be a huge future market for more expensive imported goods - won't be that accessible for US products and therefore be widely lost for US companies. And I wonder if the US really is fit and willing to accept a more self-sufficient lifestyle. Tariffs might lead to being more excluded from world economy - hence resulting in a drastic loss of overall wealth. Which might mostly affect the average population, say the middle and lower class. This I see as a problem within the good news from the automobile manufacturers - which are evidently a Trump success as of now, even I have to somehow admit that at this point.

Just thoughts - I don't really know about these things. Basically just a worker myself.

[JustWinBaby]

(01-10-2017, 12:31 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Seriously?

So you don't know?  Or just ignorant to the difference between SOURCING (which includes almost the entire apparel industry) and actually relocating jobs overseas (i.e. outsourcing)?

Trump's "outsourcing" is mostly private label business that is simply leveraging a brand name (basically what his hotel/real estate business has been the past 20 years). There's no jobs to "bring back" because he's not a manufacturer, he's a middle man just slapping a tag on an item produced by another company. Maybe there are instances where he's built an actual factory overseas, but I don't think those jobs would be a HUGE number.

Trump's business is the Trump brand. The majority of his business the past 20 years or so has been licensing his name. Wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't even actually buy and sell those clothing lines, but simply collects royalties for use of his name.

[JustWinBaby]

(01-10-2017, 01:03 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: He should go back to trolling about all the climate change studies he has read which indicate it is a fraud, but won't share. And according to his understanding of the scientific method he needs to know what I think about someone else's research before he can show why someone else's evidence based conclusions are wrong. LOL

Why would I bother dissecting study after study when you would just accuse me of cherry picking?  The good science pretty much begins and ends with the log CO2 curve, which gets us nowhere near catastrophic warming.  Everything else they don't know a lot more than they actually know.  The science is, quite literally, being made up as they go along.

So if you want to debate, I asked you to post papers you read that you think support catastrophic warming and we can debate those studies that have formed your opinions.  Since you haven't posted any, we must conclude you haven't read any, and/or don't know of any.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-10-2017, 06:36 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: So you don't know?  Or just ignorant to the difference between outsourcing (which includes almost the entire apparel industry) and actually relocating jobs overseas?

False pretenses to troll are pretty lame, but I'll entertain your BS. I know how many jobs from actual reports I have read. But, you need to post how many jobs in order for me to comment on how many jobs. Would you agree how many jobs Trump has overseas I claim to have read isn't a fact, then the opposite of that would be a hoax?  So wouldn't a claim of a "hoax" first require you to prove how many jobs Trump has overseas is a fact?  To break it down for you in plain English-I can't prove how many jobs Trump has overseas are a hoax until you prove how many jobs Trump has overseas are a fact. If the numbers of Trump jobs overseas aren't a thing then the number of jobs Trump has overseas can't be a hoax [Sorry if this is hard to follow??!?!]

[JustWinBaby]

(01-10-2017, 07:32 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: False pretenses to troll are pretty lame, but I'll entertain your BS. I know how many jobs from actual reports I have read. But, you need to post how many jobs in order for me to comment on how many jobs. Would you agree how many jobs Trump has overseas I claim to have read isn't a fact, then the opposite of that would be a hoax?  So wouldn't a claim of a "hoax" first require you to prove how many jobs Trump has overseas is a fact?  To break it down for you in plain English-I can't prove how many jobs Trump has overseas are a hoax until you prove how many jobs Trump has overseas are a fact. If the numbers of Trump jobs overseas aren't a thing then the number of jobs Trump has overseas can't be a hoax [Sorry if this is hard to follow??!?!]

It was a simple question.  I asked you how many jobs.  I guess maybe you really don't know, or like I said don't understand the difference between sourcing and outsourcing.

What you can't seem to grasp, is claiming something exists means you can provide demonstrable proof that it exists. It's a little more difficult to prove that proof doesn't exist. If you want to make a claim something exists, then show us your evidence.

[hollodero]

(01-10-2017, 07:00 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Why would I bother dissecting study after study when you would just accuse me of cherry picking?  The good science pretty much begins and ends with the log CO2 curve, which gets us nowhere near catastrophic warming.  Everything else they don't know a lot more than they actually know.  The science is, quite literally, being made up as they go along.

So if you want to debate, I asked you to post papers you read that you think support catastrophic warming and we can debate those studies that have formed your opinions.  Since you haven't posted any, we must conclude you haven't read any, and/or don't know of any.

Please refute parts of the IPCC assessment report. Link. 
Choose whatever topic you want to address/debate/debunk. Everything relevant is in there somewhere. And then we can discuss. Heck, I might even learn something.

But do it now - or keep your empty rhetorics out of my thread.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-10-2017, 07:00 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Why would I bother dissecting study after study when you would just accuse me of cherry picking?  The good science pretty much begins and ends with the log CO2 curve, which gets us nowhere near catastrophic warming.  Everything else they don't know a lot more than they actually know.  The science is, quite literally, being made up as they go along.

So if you want to debate, I asked you to post papers you read that you think support catastrophic warming and we can debate those studies that have formed your opinions.  Since you haven't posted any, we must conclude you haven't read any, and/or don't know of any.

I didn't ask you to dissect anything. I asked you to show me the studies. That's it. Since you haven't posted any, we must conclude you haven't read any, and/or don't know of any. And since you haven't figured it out, yet, my mind is open to either possibility climate change is "a thing" or a hoax based upon the evidence. Evidence you have read and claim indicates climate change is a hoax, but refuse to show that evidence to anyone else to review. 

I'm more than happy to continue your charade if you want to take it back to the other thread. 

In this thread let's just concentrate on you proving the number of jobs Trump has overseas is a fact so I can prove they are a hoax. 

Every field of science is being made up as we go along. That's why the science of medicine is constantly evolving as new information replaces outdated information. It's comical an expert in the scientific method such as yourself is completely unaware of a basic concept of science. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-10-2017, 07:40 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It was a simple question.  I asked you how many jobs.  I guess maybe you really don't know, or like I said don't understand the difference between sourcing and outsourcing.

What you can't seem to grasp, is claiming something exists means you can provide demonstrable proof that it exists.  It's a little more difficult to prove that proof doesn't exist.  If you want to make a claim something exists, then show us your evidence.

You have to show me the evidence before I can refute it. 

In case you haven't figured it out (and you haven't), I'm just repurposing your own drunken logic against you. 

(12-10-2016, 05:47 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I get that from actual studies I've read. 

(12-24-2016, 01:28 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: When you post a study "proving" Global Warming, then I can post something that "refutes" it.

(12-24-2016, 01:36 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Ummm, ok.  Not sure why you are arguing then.  False pretenses to troll are pretty lame, but I'll enteratain your BS anyway.

Would you agree that if Climate Change is not a fact, not an inevitability, then the opposite of that would be a hoax?  So wouldn't a claim of "hoax" require first that you prove Climate Change is a fact/reality?

To break it down in plain English - I can't prove CC is a hoax until you first prove you believe it's real.  If CC isn't a thing then it can't be a hoax [sorry is this hard to follow??!?!]

[Benton]

(01-10-2017, 02:30 AM)hollodero Wrote: Interesting post, sorry for only adressing that last part. This might be an interesting question - what are american workers willing to accept. I know of some examples back in Europe. A big manufacturer (I want to say VW, but not sure anymore) once told their personnel point blank, listen, you either take a paycut and forgo some of the benefits you would be entitled to, or we move to whereever and you're unemployed. And people ate it up. In a glazier's workshop in my home town I shortly worked in (never do that, btw.) the staff was also told, accept a massive paycut or Slovakians are more than willing to take your job for even less pay. And some ate that up, too (although there were mainly Slovakians when I was there, so probably not all of them did). These are frightening examples somehow. 
How desperate are people?
These instances happened in welfare states, where unemployment isn't an immediate existential threat. The US worker might be even more susceptible to blackmail of that kind - even regarding "returning" jobs. That's one of the questions things might boil down to - not only whether jobs go back to the US, but what kind of jobs those would be. I guess most Americans don't want to do a Mexican's work for a Mexican's pay - but they might feel forced to do so. Minimum wage is not likely to happen under the GOP, so there really is little limit to that apart from the worker's unwillingness to accept low wages. And how are those people percieved then. Here it's "freeloaders" and that's the end of the discussion.

Now additionally, your unemployment rate is way below that in Europe - but Detroit et al. sure are exceptions. I don't know what Detroit residents are willing to take. But if companies go back there, it might not lead to increased wealth, but to some kind of inner-state favela city where people just make enough to somehow survive. That I think is not that unrealistic.

Now in addition to tariffs - will the domestic market really be sufficient for the manufactured products? For one thing is quite clear. When you imply tariffs, it will be a double-edged sword, there will be a counterreaction. For countries like China or India - where a huge population might be on the leap to becoming wealthy and hence be a huge future market for more expensive imported goods - won't be that accessible for US products and therefore be widely lost for US companies. And I wonder if the US really is fit and willing to accept a more self-sufficient lifestyle. Tariffs might lead to being more excluded from world economy - hence resulting in a drastic loss of overall wealth. Which might mostly affect the average population, say the middle and lower class. This I see as a problem within the good news from the automobile manufacturers - which are evidently a Trump success as of now, even I have to somehow admit that at this point.

Just thoughts - I don't really know about these things. Basically just a worker myself.

To the first part, it depends. We had a steel mill close down over the summer. The union tried to negotiate reduced wages, but the parent company (German I think) wasn't interested.

The flip side of that is when companies like Hostess. Back when we had Twinkiegeddon, the CEO of Hostess was quick to point out that workers refused to take another pay cut (they'd already accepted reduced wages and decreased benefits to keep the doors open). The union moved forward with a strike because during that same time, the CEO got a 300% pay raise and most of the upper management got significant pay increases as well.

I think the majority of US workers will accept a little less if they see the company (ie, management) is sacrificing, too. But if you you go from making $20k a day to $50k or $60k, a day you're not going to get a lot of support for asking your employees to got from $40k a year to $35k.

As far as the tariffs and effect on other markets, don't know. But it's doubtful it will have a huge impact.

Using India, a quick search had a Toyota Corolla going for about the same in India as it does in the U.S. (just under $20k or 1,493,491 rupees). They're going to sell more Corolla's here than India (according to one web site, it's about 7 times more right now). If US made goods cost more, they're still going to sell more because US workers still make more.

[GMDino]

(01-10-2017, 11:22 AM)Benton Wrote: To the first part, it depends. We had a steel mill close down over the summer. The union tried to negotiate reduced wages, but the parent company (German I think) wasn't interested.

The flip side of that is when companies like Hostess. Back when we had Twinkiegeddon, the CEO of Hostess was quick to point out that workers refused to take another pay cut (they'd already accepted reduced wages and decreased benefits to keep the doors open). The union moved forward with a strike because during that same time, the CEO got a 300% pay raise and most of the upper management got significant pay increases as well.

I think the majority of US workers will accept a little less if they see the company (ie, management) is sacrificing, too. But if you you go from making $20k a day to $50k or $60k, a day you're not going to get a lot of support for asking your employees to got from $40k a year to $35k.

As far as the tariffs and effect on other markets, don't know. But it's doubtful it will have a huge impact.

Using India, a quick search had a Toyota Corolla going for about the same in India as it does in the U.S. (just under $20k or 1,493,491 rupees). They're going to sell more Corolla's here than India (according to one web site, it's about 7 times more right now). If US made goods cost more, they're still going to sell more because US workers still make more.

The Twinky thing shows up in my Facebook memories because my friends on the right did them best to blame it on the unions.

That was a damn shame.

[Bengalzona]

Large corporations generally don't identify with individual nations. They haven't for well over a hundred years. The Koch brothers' father constructed oil refineries for Germany and the Soviet Union during WWII. A lot of engines used by Germany in the war were constructed by Ford (in 1952, Ford successfully sued the U.S. government for damages to German factories from bombing).

I could take the "Liberal rhetoric" stance and say that these companies were "evil". But the simple fact is that this is what is done in business. Both of the examples I gave were legal at the time they were done. Corporations go to "where the money is green". Nation states are just tools to be manipulated or obstacles to be avoided or overcome. Trump is a businessman. He knows this. I believe he is about manipulation: using government to enrich certain interests. I would say that that plan will almost assuredly work.

As for as the economics of a nation, however, I don't see that working. I project we will have a few years of wild and free money followed by a severe economic crisis. This is generally how these things have gone in the past.

Apparently, we seem to like that here.

[Belsnickel]

I'm kind of conflicted on it, really.


The decreased reliance on the top category, which includes tariffs as they are a type of excise tax, and corporate tax has caused the increased reliance on the payroll taxes (OASDI, HI, FUTA) which are paid part by corporate and part by individual. This is a result of globalization, and whether it is something that should be reversed somewhat and how much is a matter of great debate among economists. So that is what I tend to look at, is the revenue generation.

Would it help our economy? Who would pay the price for it? If other countries aren't taking similar measures, will we just be shooting ourselves in the foot? Are we going to cut in other places and ignore the massive debt?

Anyway, I don't really have an answer because the truth is that the answer is truly unknowable at this point. That's the realm of public policy like this. We have facts and figures that show where things are, and we have theories as to what certain actions will do to those facts and figures if implemented. But the only real way to know if to implement them and hope things don't go awry too fast for us to fix them.

[Benton]

(01-10-2017, 11:58 AM)Bengalzona Wrote:   I project we will have a few years of wild and free money followed by a severe economic crisis. This is generally how these things have gone in the past.

Apparently, we seem to like that here.  

That's been the weird trend when Republicans gain Legislative and Executive control. I say weird because I don't think the real plan has ever been to break the country with excessive spending, but that's the direction the "conservative" party tends to swing when they get enough majorities.

And that's pretty frustrating for anyone with a fiscally responsible vote to cast. There really isn't anyone to throw the vote at, just two parties looking to spend, spend, spend.