Carrier just announced

[Horn6721]

MrD
It is my understanding that Trump did not offer anything specific to Carrier. nothing that he will not offer all businesses.
is that not the case?
When cities/states compete against each other by offering incentives to lure businesses an those same cities/states have to right to refuse a business' offer just like the business has the right to refuse a city/stat's offer I can't see how that is not a good idea.

Croc
I do not favor gov't intervention like was seen with GM. There should be not TOO Big To fail

 

[iatrogenic]

You've built at strawman the height of the Empire State Building. We're always going to have taxes. The only issue is how high they should be and who should have to pay how much. The taxes are going to be here. I think we should structure taxes to have as little impact on the free market as possible.

I agree with everything but the first sentence. We will always have taxes. I don't see where I said we shouldn't have taxes. I did say that taxes are contrary to a free market, which is a fact.

No, they aren't. A tax reduction that is across the board is a step closer to a free market. A tax reduction that is available to one business or industry but not to others is anti-competitive and anti-free market.

To the entity that received a tax incentive, it is a step closer to a free market. Agreed that it does not bring other entities closer to a free market.


This is a distinction without a difference in most (but not all) scenarios. If the government enacts a special tax credit available only to me that wipes out my tax liability, it is not doing anything different than if it leaves my tax status alone but simply sends me a check for the full amount of my tax liability. The difference is semantic, not substantive. In both scenarios, I'm freeloading at the expense of others. Furthermore, if Carrier gets a special tax break, then there is still a taking of property from free market participants to make up for what Carrier isn't paying. bad policy.

Agreed that tax rates should be the same for everyone, and I mean every adult that is mentally and physically capable of working. Totally disagree that the instant example is a difference without distinction and not substantive. In the tax credit scenario, you would first have to be profitable. Otherwise, you have no taxes to offset with a credit. In the Solyndra example, the government sent money (a $500million loan guarantee I believe) to a company that could not figure out a way to be profitable (before or after the loan). The subsidy to Solyndra had nothing to do with Solyndra's taxes. (I believe a few government officials totally disagreed with making the loan, but the Obama Administration overruled them because one of the owners of Solyndra was an Obama campaign donor). So the difference with distinction is that giving an entity money that has not shown that it will or can be viable is different than not taking all or a portion of the profit from a viable company.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Frame it how you want, but he has encouraged the government to use its power to pick a winner by discriminating against businesses that haven't threatened to leave the United States. Yes, he promised to do it, and again, if you don't care how the promise is kept, that's fine. Just don't claim to be pro-free enterprise. Accept that you dig government-rigged economies, Five Year Plans, etc. (He also promised to deport all illegal immigrants, and he threw that promise out the window.)

What you call discrimination, for a legal perspective, is called differentiation in economics. Carrier is offering a differentiated value to the local market. At this point, Carrier's value proposition is more valuable and in higher demand than other companies - other companies that are considering moving, other companies that aren't considering moving, other companies in Mexico, other companies in Indiana, other companies in the AC unit business, other companies in other industries. Markets prefer a differentiated product and are willing to pay a premium for those products. At heart, that is a free market. In this outcome and generally every other tax incentive program for companies, whether broad or targeted, investment is promoted. That is a good thing and good for capitalism and economic growth.

Here's the problem. You roll these scenarios all into one and deem them synonymous when they're not. They're extremely different and represent almost diametrically opposed ideologies. Lowering taxes for the entire economy is a pro-free market principle. Lowering taxes for one guy or one company and making up for it by taxing others at a higher rate is not. It's cronyism and anti-competitive.

You're not applying the same criteria to your perspective. Discrimination (economics: differentiation) when it come to tax credits, occur on the industry level, size level, geographic level, etc. Local tech incubators are developed in Austin, Houston, etc. Is that crony capitalism? What about companies who are not in the tech industry? Isn't that "discrimination." What about small business tax credits? Why aren't established businesses eligible for these credits? Etc. Are these examples definitionaly "corporate welfare" and "crony capitalism?"

I'm making arguments from an economic perspective, you're making them based on a legal perspective over what is a loaded ambiguous POLITICAL term - "Corporate Welfare." And that's fine. We have different perspectives. I will only submit, that while you argue I'm ignoring the concept of discrimination (which I am not...the concept of differentiation is very important here), you're ignoring the very clear differences amongst production subsidies, price floors, grants, state-owned enterprises, PPP, bailouts, etc. vs tax credits. You too are rolling these scenarios all into one and deem them synonymous when they're not.

Tax credits are, in almost every scenario I have seen, non-cash assets amortized over time to credit the company or organization's taxable income. That is income that enterprise has earned and of the owners' investment. If we're going to apply an ambiguous loaded politically derogative term like "corporate welfare" to certain programs, IMHO, it's much more reasonable, fair, and rhetorically accurate to apply it to government transfers and spending in uneconomic enterprises or enterprises that would not exist without government intervention. That is what welfare means to me and that is decidedly NOT what tax credits are.


God...I feel like I'm in Captain America: Civll War. Haha.

I'm Captain America BTW.

 

[Mr. Deez]

What you call discrimination, for a legal perspective, is called differentiation in economics. Carrier is offering a differentiated value to the local market. At this point, Carrier's value proposition is more valuable and in higher demand than other companies - other companies that are considering moving, other companies that aren't considering moving, other companies in Mexico, other companies in Indiana, other companies in the AC unit business, other companies in other industries.

Respectfully, you don't know this. You're speculating on Carrier's value as opposed to other companies. Furthermore, the decision to grant any preferential tax treatment here is political, not economic.

Markets prefer a differentiated product and are willing to pay a premium for those products. At heart, that is a free market. In this outcome and generally every other tax incentive program for companies, whether broad or targeted, investment is promoted. That is a good thing and good for capitalism and economic growth.

We're not talking about markets. We're talking about tax policy crafted by governments. Yes, investment is a good thing, but investment that's driven artificially by government rather than market forces can go wrong, is frequently corrupt, and often anti-competitive and economically inefficient.

You're not applying the same criteria to your perspective. Discrimination (economics: differentiation) when it come to tax credits, occur on the industry level, size level, geographic level, etc. Local tech incubators are developed in Austin, Houston, etc. Is that crony capitalism? What about companies who are not in the tech industry? Isn't that "discrimination." What about small business tax credits? Why aren't established businesses eligible for these credits? Etc. Are these examples definitionaly "corporate welfare" and "crony capitalism?"

Yes, it is discrimination (or differentiation if you prefer that word), and I don't like any of the junk you're mentioning any more than I like the deal handed to Carrier. It's all bad. Dump these credits, and cut taxes.

I will only submit, that while you argue I'm ignoring the concept of discrimination (which I am not...the concept of differentiation is very important here), you're ignoring the very clear differences amongst production subsidies, price floors, grants, state-owned enterprises, PPP, bailouts, etc. vs tax credits. You too are rolling these scenarios all into one and deem them synonymous when they're not.

I don't ignore them. My point is that it isn't proper or economically wise to set tax unique tax policies for different companies or industries based on them. Furthermore, in practice, they don't do that anyway. Like I said above, politics ultimately drives these decisions, not sound economics. The government should tax all businesses the same way and as little as possible to carry out its basic functions. If the corporate rate is causing businesses to leave, then cut the corporate rate. (Personally, I don't think we should have a corporate income tax, but that's a separate discussion.) Don't carve out some special tax rule for one company or industry.

God...I feel like I'm in Captain America: Civll War. Haha.

In light of the economics you're pitching, you sounding more like Hauptmann Großdeutsches Reich than Captain America.

 

[I35]

If the incentives are specific to Carrier (e.g. taxpayer subsidies) I'm not impressed. If they are across the board lowering of tax rates or something not reeking of corporate welfare, then I'm impressed.

They do, and it's sleazy. If you're OK with economic fascism, then so be it. (And while you're at it, don't complain about things like single payer health care and subsidies to companies like Solyndra.) However, if you like free and open markets and capitalism, then this is a bad thing.

I don't blame the companies for accepting them. Who would turn down easy money? I blame the government for offering them.

I'm a simple guy, but don't these companies who threaten to take their manufacturing to other countries have some blame? I know it is complicated, but lowering tax rates and keeping jobs here adds to our economy, right?

Are we so far to the left that we can't open our eyes to what's happening? This is a great thing and they need to give major tax breaks to all businesses. Our government has grown so big that our private sector can't keep up with their spending. It's the Govt spending is the problem. Not only that but they think they know how to spend our money better than we do. This six million on black bird studies are ....... well for the birds. We've handed our current administration around $10 trillion for stimulus and he couldn't get the GDP over 3%. Our businesses are wanting to expand. Taking off the regulations and letting us keep more of our money will help more jobs as we grow our business. We will have more tax payers paying less in taxes. That extra money will exchange hands at a much better and faster pace. It all goes hand in hand. You let the greedy government get their hands on our money and it goes to places that will end back up in their campaign (not even talking about their own pockets)

 

[horninchicago]

Are we so far to the left that we can't open our eyes to what's happening? This is a great thing and they need to give major tax breaks to all businesses. Our government has grown so big that our private sector can't keep up with their spending. It's the Govt spending is the problem. Not only that but they think they know how to spend our money better than we do. This six million on black bird studies are ....... well for the birds. We've handed our current administration around $10 trillion for stimulus and he couldn't get the GDP over 3%. Our businesses are wanting to expand. Taking off the regulations and letting us keep more of our money will help more jobs as we grow our business. We will have more tax payers paying less in taxes. That extra money will exchange hands at a much better and faster pace. It all goes hand in hand. You let the greedy government get their hands on our money and it goes to places that will end back up in their campaign (not even talking about their own pockets)

Not sure why you quoted me here. I am not to the left whatsoever. I am in favor of what Trump and Pence have done to keep Carrier and these jobs.

 

[Joe Fan]

This is another one of those clips that now seem hilarious in hindsight
Obama back in June making fun of Trump and his claims about bringing jobs back
He was asked a question by a Carrier worker who saw his job about to end
This is pretty much MUST SEE

 

[horninchicago]

This is another one of those clips that now seem hilarious in hindsight
Obama back in June making fun of Trump and his claims about bringing jobs back
He was asked a question by a Carrier worker who saw his job about to end
This is pretty much MUST SEE

So arrogant. Moron. How do you negotiate that? Well, Trump is a businessman, that's how. Obama is such an arrogant prick right here. Reach out to universities blah blah blah, what a dolt. Train for the jobs of the future not the jobs of the past. Sorry you lost your job, I'm the hope and change guy.

 

[I35]

Not sure why you quoted me here. I am not to the left whatsoever. I am in favor of what Trump and Pence have done to keep Carrier and these jobs.

Yeah I meant to agree with you in a separate text and forgot.

 

[horninchicago]

Yeah I meant to agree with you in a separate text and forgot.

 

[NJlonghorn]

This six million on black bird studies are ....... well for the birds.

I'm not familiar with the studies you mention. But this does remind me of a story.

Back in the mid 1990s, Newt Gingrich and his supporters made a huge deal about how much money the government was wasting on scientific research. One of their favorite targets was a multi-million-dollar study on the mating habits of mosquitos. A decade later, that research was critical in the fight against West Nile. More recently, it played a key role in containing Zika.

It is impossible to predict what role knowledge may play in human advancement. Private industry can't be counted on to do basic research because the benefits can't easily be monetized. Thus, it is critical that the government continue to fund these projects.

 

[I35]

This is another one of those clips that now seem hilarious in hindsight
Obama back in June making fun of Trump and his claims about bringing jobs back
He was asked a question by a Carrier worker who saw his job about to end
This is pretty much MUST SEE

I seen a video clip on fb where all these Hollywood celebs and some democratic politicians were making claims that "Trump will not be President." It went on and on. Mark Cuban said that and followed up that one reason is "Trump is lazy." One thing Trump osn't is lazy.
But the whole video now is hilarious because they were so sure of themselves. Polosi said "Trump will not be President and YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK"

 

[texas_ex2000]

Respectfully, you don't know this. You're speculating on Carrier's value as opposed to other companies. Furthermore, the decision to grant any preferential tax treatment here is political, not economic.

Again Deez, you're approaching this as if it were a legal argument. This is not a court and objecting by calling out "witness is speculating." This is an economics discussion. And in economics, you use empirical data. And I do know 100% that Carrier offered some form of differentiated value to the people of Indiana because The State of Indiana and their officers commissioned by the people of Indiana offered a deal to Carrier. It happened. If Carrier did not offer some form of differentiated value to the people of Indiana, the people of Indiana would not have given them a deal. It is empirical and it is exactly the type of datapoint used to study this sort of decision making in an economics paper.

We're not talking about markets. We're talking about tax policy crafted by governments. Yes, investment is a good thing, but investment that's driven artificially by government rather than market forces can go wrong, is frequently corrupt, and often anti-competitive and economically inefficient.

Market forces are what drove this deal. If the State of Indiana felt that this was a negative NPV proposition, they would not have negotiated a deal. And your argument also ignores the reality that corporate tax rates, including tax incentives, are also a function of global corporate tax rates. That is precisely the market at work.

I don't ignore them. My point is that it isn't proper or economically wise to set tax unique tax policies for different companies or industries based on them. Furthermore, in practice, they don't do that anyway. Like I said above, politics ultimately drives these decisions, not sound economics. The government should tax all businesses the same way and as little as possible to carry out its basic functions. If the corporate rate is causing businesses to leave, then cut the corporate rate. (Personally, I don't think we should have a corporate income tax, but that's a separate discussion.) Don't carve out some special tax rule for one company or industry.

That's a different discussion altogether, and IMHO should be considered on a case by case basis. Maybe it is not in fact, economically efficient to offer tax incentives to certain industries and companies. That discussion, however is not one about free markets, buying power, supplying power, product differentiation, comparative advantage, etc.

 

[Seattle Husker]

And I do know 100% that Carrier offered some form of differentiated value to the people of Indiana because The State of Indiana and their officers commissioned by the people of Indiana offered a deal to Carrier.

Differentiated value? As in this was a rhetorical talking point on the campaign trail and the sitting governor of the State of Indiana happens to also be the VPOTUS-Elect thus has influence towards offering state incentives for political gain.

Meanwhile, Renox, another Indiana manufacturer is moving it's plant to Monterey and another United Technology company (Carrier's parent) has plans to move their plant to Mexico in 2018.

The craziest part about this Carrier deal? Trump considered it rhetoric or "euphamism" as he called it until someone showed he had promised to keep these jobs in the US. Here is Trump's quote on the campaign trail today.

I'll never forget about a week ago I was watching the nightly news—I won't say which one because I don't want to give them credit because I don't like them much. I'll be honest, I don't like them, not even a little bit. But they were doing a story on Carrier and I say, “Wow, that's something, I want to see that.” And they had a gentleman worker, great guy, handsome guy, he was on, and it was like he didn't even know they were leaving. He said something to the effect, “No, we're not leaving because Donald Trump promised us that we're not leaving.” And I never thought I made that promise; not with Carrier—I made it for everybody else. I didn't make it really for Carrier, and I said, “What's he saying?”

He was such a believer, he was such a great guy. He said, “I've been with Donald Trump from the beginning and he made the statement that Carrier's not going anywhere, they're not leaving.” And I'm saying to myself, man. And then they played my statement, and I said, “Carrier will never leave.” But that was a euphemism. I was talking about Carrier like all other companies from here on in because they made the decision a year and a half ago. But he believed that that was—and I could understand it; I actually said [it]—when they played that I said I did make it but I didn't mean it quite that way. So now because of him, whoever that guy was, is he in the room, by any chance? That's your son? Stand up, you did a good job. … Well, your son is great.

So, he made partially good on a campaign promise by pulling strings to get Carrier to stay. Time will tell but Carrier (or it's parent United Technologies) was surely offered more than a $7M incentive to stay to offset the estimated $65M in savings from moving to Mexico. Who knew "Drain the swamp" was a euphamism (sic!) for crony capitalism?

Time for your encore Mr. Trump, make Apple move all it's manufacturing back to the US.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Differentiated value? As in this was a rhetorical talking point on the campaign trail and the sitting governor of the State of Indiana happens to also be the VPOTUS-Elect thus has influence towards offering state incentives for political gain.

Meanwhile, Renox, another Indiana manufacturer is moving it's plant to Monterey and another United Technology company (Carrier's parent) has plans to move their plant to Mexico in 2018.

The craziest part about this Carrier deal? Trump considered it rhetoric or "euphamism" as he called it until someone showed he had promised to keep these jobs in the US. Here is Trump's quote on the campaign trail today.



So, he made partially good on a campaign promise by pulling strings to get Carrier to stay. Time will tell but Carrier (or it's parent United Technologies) was surely offered more than a $7M incentive to stay to offset the estimated $65M in savings from moving to Mexico. Who knew "Drain the swamp" was a euphamism (sic!) for crony capitalism?

Time for your encore Mr. Trump, make Apple move all it's manufacturing back to the US.

Did you watch Obama's NPR video where he said those job's aren't coming back? Ouch.

Are you actually trying to argue that the people of Indiana did not want Carrier to stay? Because, that's what the beginning of your post implies. Again, this just sounds like sour grapes.

I think you also missed this too...

You and many others are misinterpreting what this Carrier thing is. It's not a harbinger of micromanaging the economy or a policy precedent for tax-incentives or anything else. Trump's time spent with Carrier is simply a statement that he would keep his word. He made an explicit detailed promise to keep this Carrier division in Indiana. That's how people see it, and that's frankly all it is.

Let me throw you a bone Husker. Trump will most definitely do something actually really stupid and head scratching in the next year. That's guaranteed. You should save whatever DNC talking points you have on iCloud for then and I will wholeheartedly join in with you.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Did you watch Obama's NPR video where he said those job's aren't coming back? Ouch.

OK. Are saying Obama should have gone to a sitting Republican governor and demanded the State of Indiana offer them incentives? What Obama recommended was sustainable change not the micromanaging that just occurred. Ouch? I'd argue celebrating longterm growth and change over a short-term political win is anything but "ouch". Hey, Trump probably has a few more fans though. What great leadership!

Are you actually trying to argue that the people of Indiana did not want Carrier to stay? Because, that's what the beginning of your post implies.

I think you also missed this too...

Of course the citizens of Indiana wanted them to stay. I'm sure they want Rexnor and the other United Technology company to also stay. Nobody has advocated losing jobs. Clearly they didn't think it important enough to offer them "incentives" until Trump won and Mike Pence became VPOTUS-elect. Do you dispute that? I've given credit to him for keeping his word. Partially. As you can see from Trump's quote this was never a promise he intended to keep.

One still has to wonder what else was promised to United Technology to keep the 1000 of the 1400 jobs there. United Technology receives $1.5B in research money from the Federal Government annually and $5.6B in contracts last year. Certainly Carrier didn't make the decision to stay of over $7M (over 10 years) when they were estimated to save $65M in the move to Mexico. There's more to this story for sure.

 

[texas_ex2000]

OK. Are saying Obama should have gone to a sitting Republican governor and demanded the State of Indiana offer them incentives? What Obama recommended was sustainable change not the micromanaging that just occurred. Ouch? I'd argue celebrating longterm growth and change over a short-term political win is anything but "ouch". Hey, Trump probably has a few more fans though. What great leadership!

Husker, he said to a Carrier employee of all people, that those jobs aren't coming back. Optics aren't good. Honestly, to the American voter...he now looks f'in stupid in that video. You're behind the 8-Ball on that one. And how does this Carrier deal impede long-term growth? That's a doozy. And wins are great whether short term or long term, because they're not just independent of each other, but in fact are correlated.

Of course the citizens of Indiana wanted them to stay.

That's all I claimed. And this was the deal that could be done. Everything else in that paragraph is editorial and a nice opinion.

One still has to wonder what else was promised to United Technology to keep the 1000 of the 1400 jobs there. United Technology receives $1.5B in research money from the Federal Government annually and $5.6B in contracts last year. Certainly Carrier didn't make the decision to stay of over $7M (over 10 years) when they were estimated to save $65M in the move to Mexico. There's more to this story for sure.

Well, if you're going to let that caffeinated Emerald City imagination run wild from the obvious that the Pentagon will favor defense contractors that keep jobs in the US (how dare they do that), how about a potential 15% federal corporate tax rate in a few years? You don't have to look too far in the Markets section of the Journal or Financial Times to see what investors think.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Time for your encore Mr. Trump, make Apple move all it's manufacturing back to the US.

Don't give him any ideas. Remember, Trump is an internet troll. He probably follows this discussion. If you're not careful, he'll nationalize Apple and force their manufacturing to the US with federal money. And tex2000 will hail it as a brilliant act of the free market and come up with economic arguments to support it. He'll ditch Milton Friedman and embrace Paul Krugman (or more accurately Hjalmar Schacht).

 

[NJlonghorn]

And I do know 100% that Carrier offered some form of differentiated value to the people of Indiana because The State of Indiana and their officers commissioned by the people of Indiana offered a deal to Carrier. It happened. If Carrier did not offer some form of differentiated value to the people of Indiana, the people of Indiana would not have given them a deal.

FIFY: And I do know 100% that Solyndra offered some form of differentiated value to the people of United States because The United States and their officers commissioned by the people of United States offered a deal to Solyndra. It happened. If Solyndra did not offer some form of differentiated value to the people of The United States, the people of the United States would not have given them a deal.

I love this logic -- anything the government does is inherently market-driven. The New Deal? The Great Society? Obamacare? All are examples of laissez-faire at work, baby!!!!

 

[Mr. Deez]

I love this logic -- anything the government does is inherently market-driven. The New Deal? The Great Society? Obamacare? All are examples of laissez-faire at work, baby!!!!

This is what worried me about Trumpism. Too many people are rejecting economic conservatism and embracing a command economics that they never would have tolerated from a Democrat. They were driven by partisanship rather than principle, and it's scary to see the result, especially when smart people like Tex2000 are caught up in it. Who's going to be the advocate for traditional economic conservatism now?

 

[texas_ex2000]

FIFY: And I do know 100% that Solyndra offered some form of differentiated value to the people of United States because The United States and their officers commissioned by the people of United States offered a deal to Solyndra. It happened. If Solyndra did not offer some form of differentiated value to the people of The United States, the people of the United States would not have given them a deal.

That is a completely 100% accurate statement. Again, counselor, that's is empirical evidence of differentiation, just like it is in Carrier. That also goes for PPPs, price floors, SOEs, etc.

You completely missed the defining point, however, of the difference between tax incentives (Carrier), which promote profitable decisions that are accretive to income, and a government loan guarantee (Solyandra) and bailouts as free market mechanisms. Try again.

 

[Mr. Deez]

That is a completely 100% accurate statement.

You need an intervention, Dude.

 

[texas_ex2000]

This is what worried me about Trumpism. Too many people are rejecting economic conservatism and embracing a command economics that they never would have tolerated from a Democrat. They were driven by partisanship rather than principle, and it's scary to see the result, especially when smart people like Tex2000 are caught up in it. Who's going to be the advocate for traditional economic conservatism now?

Deez, can you ever recall me being against tax incentives? The answer is no.

To reiterate, tax incentives are not anti-free market. So the following is not a statement about tax incentives, but a general one. While I believe fully in free markets, which you appear to also, a completely pure laissez-faire world economy could lead to a corner solution scenario where all manufacturing jobs are overseas and only a very small number of hugely lucrative service jobs are in the US. That is an economically efficient scenario, but one we all know in practice is not sustainable in the real world with human beings. This has been true since the beginning of the field of economics, and a concept I have believed ever since I graduated business school and started working in finance.

You need an intervention, Dude.

Deez, you and NJ can't shake this lawyer schooled rationalist perspective. That's good in the law. But everything about economic analysis, economic policy development, and economic theory including that argument above is about empiricism.

 

[mchammer]

Interesting article by Peggy Noonan:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj....carrier-coup-and-a-lesson-from-jfk-1480637967

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Phil Elliott]

This Carrier thing was a clear win for Trump. He promised something and he delivered even before he takes office. The long-term plan is to keep a bunch more Carriers home by slashing the corporate tax rate, but he did what he had to do in the short-term to make the Carrier thing happen. Some people just can't handle that.

 

[Horn6721]

What did Trump offer Carrier that will not be available to any and all other businesses?
It seems leftists and media think Trump is taking money away from taxpayers and giving it to Carrier
What did Pence offer Carrier that other govs or mayors have not for decades offered businesses to locate or stay in an area?
Those who do not like the decades long practice need to work to change it.
What Trump and Pence did is nothing new
And yes BO could have done it long ago
Anyone think Trump would hesitate to call a Democrat gov to get help to save other jobs?
Husker are the new companies you mentioned the only 2 planning to leave?
Are there any companies in Dem controlled states planning going to leave?

 

[Seattle Husker]

What did Trump offer Carrier that will not be available to any and all other businesses?

His VPOTUS-elect offered Carrier, not Renox or other companies leaving for Mexico, $7M in tax incentives that are available ONLY to Carrier. That's the only documentation of this deal so far.

 

[texas_ex2000]

His VPOTUS-elect offered Carrier, not Renox or other companies leaving for Mexico, $7M in tax incentives that are available ONLY to Carrier. That's the only documentation of this deal so far.

Like the lawyers here, you're rationalizing. Renox didn't offer the differentiated value that Carrier did. If they did in this case, they would have gotten a deal too. But they didn't.

In a free market economy, as opposed to a state controlled/command economy, private companies have agency to negotiate deals including those that affect their taxes. Deal making is a hallmark of capitalism and a major tool to reduce risk in investment projects.

Renox had all the agency to do what Carrier did, but they didn't. There was nothing stopping Renox from promoting themselves, from asking for tax incentives, and developing enough value proposition to make that pitch compelling to the people of Indiana. But they didn't. The capital markets will price their company accordingly.

 

[djimaplon]

I guess I shouldnt be surprised that people talk out of both sides of their mouth depending on who won. We all know what crony capitalism is, and both sides are guilty of it. It just happens that one side predominately uses regulation as their tool of choice where the other uses taxes credits; in either case they both use both.

"We won't need so much flexibility for other companies because we are going to have a situation where they're going to know, number one we'll treat them well, and number two there will be consequences; meaning, they'll be taxed very heavily at the border if they want leave, to fire their people, leave, make product in different countries and then think they'll sell that product over the border."

The question remains; should the government be picking winners and losers?

That said, Trump has bested his critics again. He gets the positive optics, while discrediting any deeper analysis as a product of the "crooked" media.