Trump vs General Motors......who has the high ground?

[Remodeling Maidiac]

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/96100270/?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

The plant in Mexico makes sense, since the vast majority of the hatchback versions are sold there and further south. HOWEVER, the American tax payer bailed out a failing General Motors not Mexico. I also understand that demand for the funky version of the car in the States is very low so retooling a factory to build them here is not financially feasible.
Not sure where I stand on this.
Ultimately I believe if you're an American company making products outside the country then shipping it back in to sell you should pay a tariff.

 

[Moonglow]

They should have a tariff...Since foreign auto makers come to the US and open plants, produce autos and make a profit...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

They should have a tariff...Since foreign auto makers come to the US and open plants, produce autos and make a profit...

That has more to do with the costs of shipping. That is why foreign auto companies build here and why GM is building that crap car in Mexico. But is Toyota building cars here then shipping them back to Japan?

 

[depotoo]

They should have a tariff...Since foreign auto makers come to the US and open plants, produce autos and make a profit...

Most don't have the union contracts here to contend with like GM does.

 

[TNHarley]

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/96100270/?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

The plant in Mexico makes sense, since the vast majority of the hatchback versions are sold there and further south. HOWEVER, the American tax payer bailed out a failing General Motors not Mexico. I also understand that demand for the funky version of the car in the States is very low so retooling a factory to build them here is not financially feasible.
Not sure where I stand on this.
Ultimately I believe if you're an American company making products outside the country then shipping it back in to sell you should pay a tariff.

We lost 11 B to those fucks and all they did was invest overseas. Fuck GM
However The plant in Mexico makes sense, since the vast majority of the hatchback versions are sold there and further south I totally agree with.
if you're an American company making products outside the country then shipping it back in to sell you should pay a tariff
Indeed. A YYYYYUUUUUUUGGGGGEEEE one

You don't really leave much room for discussion lol

 

[NightFox]

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/96100270/?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

The plant in Mexico makes sense, since the vast majority of the hatchback versions are sold there and further south. HOWEVER, the American tax payer bailed out a failing General Motors not Mexico. I also understand that demand for the funky version of the car in the States is very low so retooling a factory to build them here is not financially feasible.
Not sure where I stand on this.
Ultimately I believe if you're an American company making products outside the country then shipping it back in to sell you should pay a tariff.

IMHO, a POTUS (or POTUS-Elect) has no business attacking individual Companies using the bully pulpit, if he doesn't agree with the current trade policies then fine, make specific proposals to change them but going after individual companies is tantamount to central planners picking marketplace winners and losers (which free market advocates have been railing against for decades) not to mention sinking to the level of scumbags like Harry Reid who thought it perfectly fine to slander individual American Citizens from the well of the Senate.

As for the rest of it, tariffs are no panacea , the history of protectionism is littered with bad economic outcomes, the trick is to pursue policies that make domestic manufacturing and domestic labor more globally competitive (like say reducing regulatory and tax burdens) NOT trying to wall off global competition using artificial barriers.

 

[rdean]

How many Trump products were made overseas? Here’s the complete list.

Will those jobs be coming back too? I can't wait!

 

[Fenton Lum]

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/96100270/?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

The plant in Mexico makes sense, since the vast majority of the hatchback versions are sold there and further south. HOWEVER, the American tax payer bailed out a failing General Motors not Mexico. I also understand that demand for the funky version of the car in the States is very low so retooling a factory to build them here is not financially feasible.
Not sure where I stand on this.
Ultimately I believe if you're an American company making products outside the country then shipping it back in to sell you should pay a tariff.

IMHO, a POTUS (or POTUS-Elect) has no business attacking individual Companies using the bully pulpit, if he doesn't agree with the current trade policies then fine, make specific proposals to change them but going after individual companies is tantamount to central planners picking marketplace winners and losers (which free market advocates have been railing against for decades) not to mention sinking to the level of scumbags like Harry Reid who thought it perfectly fine to slander individual American Citizens from the well of the Senate.

As for the rest of it, tariffs are no panacea , the history of protectionism is littered with bad economic outcomes, the trick is to pursue policies that make domestic manufacturing and domestic labor more globally competitive (like say reducing regulatory and tax burdens) NOT trying to wall off global competition using artificial barriers.

I'm sure another tweet will solve all this stuff.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/96100270/?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

The plant in Mexico makes sense, since the vast majority of the hatchback versions are sold there and further south. HOWEVER, the American tax payer bailed out a failing General Motors not Mexico. I also understand that demand for the funky version of the car in the States is very low so retooling a factory to build them here is not financially feasible.
Not sure where I stand on this.
Ultimately I believe if you're an American company making products outside the country then shipping it back in to sell you should pay a tariff.

IMHO, a POTUS (or POTUS-Elect) has no business attacking individual Companies using the bully pulpit, if he doesn't agree with the current trade policies then fine, make specific proposals to change them but going after individual companies is tantamount to central planners picking marketplace winners and losers (which free market advocates have been railing against for decades) not to mention sinking to the level of scumbags like Harry Reid who thought it perfectly fine to slander individual American Citizens from the well of the Senate.

As for the rest of it, tariffs are no panacea , the history of protectionism is littered with bad economic outcomes, the trick is to pursue policies that make domestic manufacturing and domestic labor more globally competitive (like say reducing regulatory and tax burdens) NOT trying to wall off global competition using artificial barriers.

I don't believe history is an accurate barometer for our modern day economic issues. Throughout so much of history much of the rest of the world lagged behind the United States because of a lack of infrastructure. History certainly offers us some good guidelines but things have changed so much I believe a lot of that data is simply useless outdated information.
With so many choices for consumers a tariff on one product, because it's imported, can not simply result in the manufacturer passing that cost along to the consumer least they risk losing sales to their competition.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

How many Trump products were made overseas? Here’s the complete list.

Will those jobs be coming back too? I can't wait!

I've already created threads about that situation. Multiple in fact. From my understanding most of those products are simply using the Trump name and are not actually Trump owned manufacturers.
The ones he does own, if any, should certainly be brought back. Otherwise he is a hypocrite

 

[Fenton Lum]

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/96100270/?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

The plant in Mexico makes sense, since the vast majority of the hatchback versions are sold there and further south. HOWEVER, the American tax payer bailed out a failing General Motors not Mexico. I also understand that demand for the funky version of the car in the States is very low so retooling a factory to build them here is not financially feasible.
Not sure where I stand on this.
Ultimately I believe if you're an American company making products outside the country then shipping it back in to sell you should pay a tariff.

IMHO, a POTUS (or POTUS-Elect) has no business attacking individual Companies using the bully pulpit, if he doesn't agree with the current trade policies then fine, make specific proposals to change them but going after individual companies is tantamount to central planners picking marketplace winners and losers (which free market advocates have been railing against for decades) not to mention sinking to the level of scumbags like Harry Reid who thought it perfectly fine to slander individual American Citizens from the well of the Senate.

As for the rest of it, tariffs are no panacea , the history of protectionism is littered with bad economic outcomes, the trick is to pursue policies that make domestic manufacturing and domestic labor more globally competitive (like say reducing regulatory and tax burdens) NOT trying to wall off global competition using artificial barriers.

I don't believe history is an accurate barometer for our modern day economic issues. Throughout so much of history much of the rest of the world lagged behind the United States because of a lack of infrastructure. History certainly offers us some good guidelines but things have changed so much I believe a lot of that data is simply useless outdated information.
With so many choices for consumers a tariff on one product, because it's imported, can not simply result in the manufacturer passing that cost along to the consumer least they risk losing sales to their competition.

Yeah, I can buy that, but they're sure as hell not going to just eat the loss.

 

[Fenton Lum]

How many Trump products were made overseas? Here’s the complete list.

Will those jobs be coming back too? I can't wait!

I've already created threads about that situation. Multiple in fact. From my understanding most of those products are simply using the Trump name and are not actually Trump owned manufacturers.
The ones he does own, if any, should certainly be brought back. Otherwise he is a hypocrite

He's already a hypocrite, but yeah, he could be a bigger one, if that's possible.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We'll see if Trump means it if once he's in office he takes real measures to put a tariff on cars coming into the US from Mexico.

 

[Rustic]

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/96100270/?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

The plant in Mexico makes sense, since the vast majority of the hatchback versions are sold there and further south. HOWEVER, the American tax payer bailed out a failing General Motors not Mexico. I also understand that demand for the funky version of the car in the States is very low so retooling a factory to build them here is not financially feasible.
Not sure where I stand on this.
Ultimately I believe if you're an American company making products outside the country then shipping it back in to sell you should pay a tariff.

Bush started the bailout of GM, it never should've been started and bailed out… Big mistake

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

We'll see if Trump means it if once he's in office he takes real measures to put a tariff on cars coming into the US from Mexico.

Would you support such a move?

 

[NightFox]

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/96100270/?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

The plant in Mexico makes sense, since the vast majority of the hatchback versions are sold there and further south. HOWEVER, the American tax payer bailed out a failing General Motors not Mexico. I also understand that demand for the funky version of the car in the States is very low so retooling a factory to build them here is not financially feasible.
Not sure where I stand on this.
Ultimately I believe if you're an American company making products outside the country then shipping it back in to sell you should pay a tariff.

IMHO, a POTUS (or POTUS-Elect) has no business attacking individual Companies using the bully pulpit, if he doesn't agree with the current trade policies then fine, make specific proposals to change them but going after individual companies is tantamount to central planners picking marketplace winners and losers (which free market advocates have been railing against for decades) not to mention sinking to the level of scumbags like Harry Reid who thought it perfectly fine to slander individual American Citizens from the well of the Senate.

As for the rest of it, tariffs are no panacea , the history of protectionism is littered with bad economic outcomes, the trick is to pursue policies that make domestic manufacturing and domestic labor more globally competitive (like say reducing regulatory and tax burdens) NOT trying to wall off global competition using artificial barriers.

I don't believe history is an accurate barometer for our modern day economic issues.

What other barometer would you suggest?

Throughout so much of history much of the rest of the world lagged behind the United States because of a lack of infrastructure. History certainly offers us some good guidelines but things have changed so much I believe a lot of that data is simply useless outdated information.

Things haven't changed, international trade has been with us for a very long time and the fundamentals remain the same, comparative advantage and the natural flow of capital still follow the same rules that they did in ancient times the only difference is the rate of change and the magnitude and scope of the effects of central planner interference in the marketplace.

With so many choices for consumers a tariff on one product, because it's imported, can not simply result in the manufacturer passing that cost along to the consumer least they risk losing sales to their competition.

In and of themselves reasonable tariffs are fine as a vehicle for raising government revenue as a means to advance protectionism (or manipulate the marketplace) they have proven to reduce domestic competitiveness, increase consumer prices/choice as well as breed cronyism and corruption.

 

[whitehall]

There is no "Trump vs General Motors". The president elect is merely trying to keep American industries in the USA and GM is free to operate any way it wants to without a government bailout.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/96100270/?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

The plant in Mexico makes sense, since the vast majority of the hatchback versions are sold there and further south. HOWEVER, the American tax payer bailed out a failing General Motors not Mexico. I also understand that demand for the funky version of the car in the States is very low so retooling a factory to build them here is not financially feasible.
Not sure where I stand on this.
Ultimately I believe if you're an American company making products outside the country then shipping it back in to sell you should pay a tariff.

IMHO, a POTUS (or POTUS-Elect) has no business attacking individual Companies using the bully pulpit, if he doesn't agree with the current trade policies then fine, make specific proposals to change them but going after individual companies is tantamount to central planners picking marketplace winners and losers (which free market advocates have been railing against for decades) not to mention sinking to the level of scumbags like Harry Reid who thought it perfectly fine to slander individual American Citizens from the well of the Senate.

As for the rest of it, tariffs are no panacea , the history of protectionism is littered with bad economic outcomes, the trick is to pursue policies that make domestic manufacturing and domestic labor more globally competitive (like say reducing regulatory and tax burdens) NOT trying to wall off global competition using artificial barriers.

I don't believe history is an accurate barometer for our modern day economic issues.

What other barometer would you suggest?

Throughout so much of history much of the rest of the world lagged behind the United States because of a lack of infrastructure. History certainly offers us some good guidelines but things have changed so much I believe a lot of that data is simply useless outdated information.

Things haven't changed, international trade has been with us for a very long time and the fundamentals remain the same, comparative advantage and the natural flow of capital still follow the same rules that they did in ancient times the only difference is the rate of change and the magnitude and scope of the effects of central planner interference in the marketplace.

With so many choices for consumers a tariff on one product, because it's imported, can not simply result in the manufacturer passing that cost along to the consumer least they risk losing sales to their competition.

In and of themselves reasonable tariffs are fine as a vehicle for raising government revenue as a means to advance protectionism (or manipulate the marketplace) they have proven to reduce domestic competitiveness, increase consumer prices/choice as well as breed cronyism and corruption.

I don't know to be honest but I am willing to try something different than the current status quo. The current status has our jobs fleeing the country at a pretty high rate.

And I disagree that things haven't changed. Technology is leaps & bounds ahead of where it was when Bill Clinton was in office and our current trade agreements began in earnest. There are many new competitors and a lot more cash flow available for upstarts & restructuring.

I do believe you are right in the aspect that we need to use a cautious approach. On that I have to defer to the people who are much smarter than I on the issue.

 

[NightFox]

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/96100270/?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

The plant in Mexico makes sense, since the vast majority of the hatchback versions are sold there and further south. HOWEVER, the American tax payer bailed out a failing General Motors not Mexico. I also understand that demand for the funky version of the car in the States is very low so retooling a factory to build them here is not financially feasible.
Not sure where I stand on this.
Ultimately I believe if you're an American company making products outside the country then shipping it back in to sell you should pay a tariff.

IMHO, a POTUS (or POTUS-Elect) has no business attacking individual Companies using the bully pulpit, if he doesn't agree with the current trade policies then fine, make specific proposals to change them but going after individual companies is tantamount to central planners picking marketplace winners and losers (which free market advocates have been railing against for decades) not to mention sinking to the level of scumbags like Harry Reid who thought it perfectly fine to slander individual American Citizens from the well of the Senate.

As for the rest of it, tariffs are no panacea , the history of protectionism is littered with bad economic outcomes, the trick is to pursue policies that make domestic manufacturing and domestic labor more globally competitive (like say reducing regulatory and tax burdens) NOT trying to wall off global competition using artificial barriers.

I don't believe history is an accurate barometer for our modern day economic issues.

What other barometer would you suggest?

Throughout so much of history much of the rest of the world lagged behind the United States because of a lack of infrastructure. History certainly offers us some good guidelines but things have changed so much I believe a lot of that data is simply useless outdated information.

Things haven't changed, international trade has been with us for a very long time and the fundamentals remain the same, comparative advantage and the natural flow of capital still follow the same rules that they did in ancient times the only difference is the rate of change and the magnitude and scope of the effects of central planner interference in the marketplace.

With so many choices for consumers a tariff on one product, because it's imported, can not simply result in the manufacturer passing that cost along to the consumer least they risk losing sales to their competition.

In and of themselves reasonable tariffs are fine as a vehicle for raising government revenue as a means to advance protectionism (or manipulate the marketplace) they have proven to reduce domestic competitiveness, increase consumer prices/choice as well as breed cronyism and corruption.

I don't know to be honest but I am willing to try something different than the current status quo. The current status has our jobs fleeing the country at a pretty high rate.

You're right, the status quo sucks but the status quo doesn't owe it's existence to the lack of trade barriers it owes it's existence to government completely destroying our domestic competitiveness with a mountain of regulations and confiscatory levels of taxation, not to mention crowding out private investment with it's insane levels of borrowing. The United States has A LOT going for it with respect to being an attractive place to invest, I'm convinced that if we get rid of the grotesque levels of government interference currently in place we'll see an increase of capital inflows (in all sectors) that will make peoples head spin.

And I disagree that things haven't changed. Technology is leaps & bounds ahead of where it was when Bill Clinton was in office and our current trade agreements began in earnest. There are many new competitors and a lot more cash flow available for upstarts & restructuring.

IMHO the fundamentals haven't changed, just think about the variables that directly affect business decisions regarding whether to manufacture XYZ goods/services "here" rather than "there", technology simply makes changes occur more rapidly (because of increased information flows) and expands the impact of those changes (because it allows for greater decentralization) it doesn't alter the fundamentals that drive those decisions.

 

[depotoo]

I agree, but with one caveat, he was being pressured by the Dem's and an incoming President Obama-
The money will come from the Wall Street bailout passed by Congress, a reversal for the White House. President-elect Barack Obama and Democrats had long advocated that course, and Bush had resisted it.

From USA Today when it was announced Dec 9th
GM bailout played out over five years

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/96100270/?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

The plant in Mexico makes sense, since the vast majority of the hatchback versions are sold there and further south. HOWEVER, the American tax payer bailed out a failing General Motors not Mexico. I also understand that demand for the funky version of the car in the States is very low so retooling a factory to build them here is not financially feasible.
Not sure where I stand on this.
Ultimately I believe if you're an American company making products outside the country then shipping it back in to sell you should pay a tariff.

Bush started the bailout of GM, it never should've been started and bailed out… Big mistake