If he's been on yet another "forced vacation" perhaps he will come slinking back out of whatever hole he crawled into after the election?
As he takes his glory lap today at Carrier, he announced there would be many more deals like it under his presidency. Does anybody now doubt that?
To me, the devil is in the details, so I don't know if the Carrier deal is good for America, but it is obviously good on the micro level, at least for the people keeping their jobs and great on the PR and political level.
But with all that said, wtf is the Dem politician response going to be when he is on the national/cable news every so often announcing yet another win for the middle class with a deal similar to Carrier?
Are they suddenly going to make the conservative argument against these type of deals and banish them for a generation from being considered at the ballot box by these blue collar guys and gals?
If they remain silent in the future over similar deals, they look petty.
If they criticize them, they look out of touch with the plight of the little guy and will face his wrath.
If they join in and cheer, Trump sweeps to a second term.
Trump has put the Dem party in a virtual head lock and in the process has made Obama look like a guy who doesn't care or didn't have the intellect/knowledge/balls to pull this off.
So what should the Dem strategy be?
In fact, the Dems are giving Trump credit but are also pointing out a few things:
1) It looks like Pence gave Carrier a break on state taxes, so the taxpayers of Indiana are going to have to pony up to make up the difference or give up the same amount in service cuts. This might not be a great model for saving jobs.
2) Trump only saved about half the jobs that were being cut.
3) Obama saved 1 MILLION jobs of auto workers and their suppliers when he bailed out GM and Chrysler. And he got back all the money. Today the two companies are healthy, making great products and paying taxes, as are their workers.
So give Trump credit but he has a long way to go to match his predecessor.
The taxpayer took it up the ass to the tune of over $9 billion and that was one of the many reasons I was against it. I am going to wait on the details of this Carrier deal before I praise it or rip it.
Now, with re: to your other points, I agree it may not be a great deal for the tax payer but the optics of this situation, if it plays out time and time again as I think it will, could devastate the Dems relationship to middle class, regardless of the workers affiliated party.
Its one thing for Trump to SAY he will fight for the middle class worker, but when ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc are all SHOWING him saving jobs, it really is a game changer at that point.
Video is just a very powerful medium and no one knows better how to use it then Trump.
I think the congressional Dems are shitting their collective pants right now on how to react now and in the future.
the total invested in the bailout was more than $80 billion. So losing $9 billion to save 1 million jobs is fine with me, and with most people.
As for the Carrier deal, Trump will be too busy trying to keep his head above water to do this over and over again. It's not a game changer.
You just got done saying $7,000 per job is a bad deal but then praised Obama's $9,000 per job as OK.
Where's the mention of Obama telling the GM and Chrysler bond holder they are going to take it in the shorts when Obama short circuited federal bankruptcy laws and offered nothing but a big FU to the previously secured bond holders? Did you or Obama send them as much as a Thank You card for their contribution to saving a million jobs?
And don't even get me started on "Cash for Clunkers" where the asinine government thought that destroying capital was somehow good for the growth of the economy. Obama sure has shown how he doesn't know how to make a deal.
Prior to that deal I would have bet big money such a deal never could have happened, as would anyone who knew even the least bit about the difference between "debt" and "equity" This was the biggest fucking of secured creditors I have ever heard of and completely against the law, but our last POTUS never seemed to care much about the law except how to manipulate, circumvent and outright break the law. I look forward to Trump undoing as much of what Obama did over the last 8 years as legally possible.
Luckily it wasn't worth much but it got vaporized. Fortunately for me, I have a nice diversified portfolio and it didn't hurt much at all. And it's been more than made up for (many times over) by the huge run-up in the markets since Obama came to office. You two clowns are aware that the Dow is up about 11,000 points since its low in 2009
but the bond holder of GM and Chrysler didn't "lose" their money in the market, they were fucked out of it by the US government who blatantly ignored laws that have been in place since there were financial markets.
Just in case you don't know the difference between debt and equity, Debt/bond holders are secured by not only the "full faith and credit" like the holders of corporate debentures, but they also are secured by the assets of the company which they are supposed to get "first pass" at before the "shareholders" see a penny.
You did know all this before I told you, didn't you? Or do you plan on defending the indefensible?
So I was well aware of how all stakeholders got fucked, and the difference between debt and equity. I also note that BOTH of you used the same diversion about debt vs. equity to avoid commenting on the fact that, under Obama, the Dow is up thousands of points. In fact, even if you take away the last 1,000 on the Dow as being a Trump rally, it's still up 10,000 in the past 8 years.
How will you two clowns find a way to whine about that, I wonder???
Especially when they were the least global of the big three.
Besides, it was minimal. Having it wiped out was hardly a tragedy.
I will take it as a serious question and attempt to answer it in a serious way.
The answer is "it depends" There are several different types of bonds, but ALL bonds take precedence over shareholder who only own "equity" in the company which of course means what is left over after all the debt holders have been paid in the even of a liquidation.
There are two major types of bonds for the purposes of your question, the first is a "secured bond" in which certain assets of the corporation are pledged to those particular bond holders and those bond holders have "first position" if those assets are further leverage under the law. The second type are called "debentures" which are typically "full faith and credit" of the corporation, but don't necessarily attach any specific collateral of the corporation and are more general and sweeping in nature, but subordinate to the "secured bondholders
To even be comparing a deal that saved ONE MILLION JOBS with one that save A THOUSAND. And then to actually pull out a calculator to quibble over a difference of $2,000 a job.
You have no idea how silly you look, do you, ed?
Try to spin it any way you think is rational. It only demonstrates your irrational thought processes. While you're at it throw in the GM bond holders contribution due to the illegal activities of Obama's bailout of the UAW. Going in, GM held about $43 billion in debt. One estimate is their debt holders ended up with as little as 25 cents on the dollar. Pay close attention now because I'm going to get my calculator out again. Math may not be your strong suit but that means the bond holders were forced to contribute as much as $32,000 per job saved. Care to quibble over that?
And it's even more unlikely that he knows the difference between stocks, bonds, debentures or any of the dozens of more complicated financial instruments out there. and then he wonders why I "dumb it down" around here when talking about financial matters.
But from what I can tell, yours only includes debt. So lecture us all you want about complex financial instruments. But not until you own some.
You were the one who brought up the cost per job, not me. You were the one to crow about the $2,000 difference between the cost of the GM bailout and the present little diversion of Trump's. And NOW you want to switch the measuring tape to the bond holders and up the price to $32,000 a job.
Math may not be my strong suit but I can smell bullshit when it's under my nose.
You can't distinguish a cogent analysis from an ad hominem. Being called a hypocrite in this case is by no means even close to being an ad hominem, It's extremely accurate. I can now also accuse you of a quickly fading short term memory. Fortunately your posts are directly above, available for us all to read.
You started out by claiming $7 million to save 1000 jobs was bad specifically because and I quote "the taxpayers of Indiana are going to have to pony up to make up the difference or give up the same amount in service cuts. This might not be a great model for saving jobs."
You further went on to say regarding Obama's auto bailout and I quote "losing $9 billion to save 1 million jobs is fine with me, and with most people."
So spending $7,000/job = BAD but spending $9000/job = GOOD. You're the one that first used the term "model for saving jobs"
So what is it you are really saying?
BAD because Republicans did it but GOOD because Democrats did it.
Or maybe BAD because it was in Indiana but GOOD because it was in places like Michigan and Chicago.
Or maybe BAD because its one thousand but GOOD because it was one million. The only argument you could have made (BUT DID NOT) is that the $9,000 per Obama job was spread across all U.S. tax payers whereas the $7,000 per Pence job is only spread across fewer Indiana tax payers. But then again the 1000 Pence jobs all stay in Indiana so even that argument is not quite valid.
The only rational method for evaluating both cases is to look at the financial model $7,000/job vs $9,000/job
Remember, according to Jake.... $7,000/job = BAD but $9,000/job = GOOD.
BTW, no SWITCHING of measurement methods here, just a reminder that the Indiana government did not screw any bond holders in the UTC/Carrier deal but that Obama's true cost per job was $41,000 PLUS the money you and the other GM equity holders lost.
If you want to move on, maybe we can instead talk about how ALL of the government subsidy deals (big and small) slows down growth and tends to cause more appropriate private investment to get misplaced or delayed.
-- Modified on 12/1/2016 10:31:18 PM
As for your last post, I might have read it if I wanted to read a novel to put me to sleep. When I saw how long it was, I just laughed.
You're a real Grade A bloviator, aren't you ed?
-- Modified on 12/1/2016 10:31:08 PM
to pretend that I'm laffy. Short and mostly meaningless phrases are what you prefer. Got it.
More than a couple of sentences of single syllable whining but less than a big-city phone book.
Why don't you just slink away after this your latest beatdown? You really are pathetic.
How often do you need to clean the drool from your keyboard before proceeding?
PS: Do you have any clue how transparent you are? I'll bet the entire board knows who you are. Too bad you haven't had this alias long enough to change it before you come out of your cave again. Talk about embarrassing.
EVERY PENNY that the Obama administration invested in the auto bailout was ultimately recovered by Treasury, as President Obama himself proclaimed when he took his victory lap. I think this was what Jake remembered when he said ALL the money was recovered –it was a big time press announcement for a few days. Obama also said “and more” – this part is arguable; but the facts are undisputed that the admin did recover all the money invested on Obama’s watch.
The 9 billion that was “lost” was money provided by –drum roll - the Bush administration in the form of short term loans- some of this money was lost when Chrysler was sold to Fiat, some apparently was assigned to “Old GM” and discharged in bankruptcy.
Now, it is fair to say that the “federal government” lost 9 billion on the auto bailout but your attempt to accuse Jake of a Republican “bad” but Democrat “good” slant on the issue ignores the true facts and what he actually said.
As to your other points-
“The only rational method for evaluating both cases is to look at the financial model $7,000/job vs $9,000/job
and the
“the GM bondholders were screwed”
Umm—no.
Your attempt to compare the auto bailout to the Carrier deal ignores that GM and Chrysler very likely faced Chapter 7 – liquidation – but for the bail out. So the federal government effectively spent 9 billion not only to save 1,000,000 jobs but also to save two of our biggest auto companies and all the suppliers who depend on them. Simply comparing the money spent per job – as you did- ignores that Carrier is not at risk of Chapter 7 at all.
So let’s give Jake some credit here. His core point- “losing $9 billion to save 1 million jobs is fine with me, and with most people” – is essentially correct if you accept the premise –as most but not all experts do - that the bailout also saved the companies. And, even assuming they could have restructured without a bailout, the bond holders would almost certainly have been just as screwed.
Jake keeps his “perfect record.” But welcome back anyway Ed. LOL
The 9 billion that was “lost” was money provided by –drum roll - the Bush administration in the form of short term loans- some of this money was lost when Chrysler was sold to Fiat, some apparently was assigned to “Old GM” and discharged in bankruptcy.
Now, it is fair to say that the “federal government” lost 9 billion on the auto bailout but your attempt to accuse Jake of a Republican “bad” but Democrat “good” slant on the issue ignores the true facts and what he actually said.
As to your other points-
“The only rational method for evaluating both cases is to look at the financial model $7,000/job vs $9,000/job
and the
“the GM bondholders were screwed”
Umm—no.
Your attempt to compare the auto bailout to the Carrier deal ignores that GM and Chrysler very likely faced Chapter 7 – liquidation – but for the bail out. So the federal government effectively spent 9 billion not only to save 1,000,000 jobs but also to save two of our biggest auto companies and all the suppliers who depend on them. Simply comparing the money spent per job – as you did- ignores that Carrier is not at risk of Chapter 7 at all.
So let’s give Jake some credit here. His core point- “losing $9 billion to save 1 million jobs is fine with me, and with most people” – is essentially correct if you accept the premise –as most but not all experts do - that the bailout also saved the companies. And, even assuming they could have restructured without a bailout, the bond holders would almost certainly have been just as screwed.
Jake keeps his “perfect record.” But welcome back anyway Ed. LOL.
You would have been better off having the fatty twins backing you up. ROLFMFAO.
I noticed he skipped right over the part where the bond holders got fucked in the deal. Even in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy most of the bond holders would have been made whole and only the ones holding subordinated debentures would have lost "some" of their money instead of all of it.
Having Mari agree with you in matters of finance is like having BBBBB chime in to defend you on GD. It's the kiss of death, and proof positive that you got things wrong. lmao
As someone pointed out today, if Trump keeps saving 1,000 jobs a week it will take him 30 years just to save the number of jobs saved by Obama's auto bailout. And pardon me if I fail to give a shit about the bond holders. Since when are they sacred when the American economy is at stake? Do you remotely recall in what horrible shape our economy was in early 2009? The failure of BM and Chrysler would have made it many times worse and possibly brought on a full depression. So sometimes the greater good is more important than bond covenants.
Have you considered the possibility that having GaGa disagree with you is the Economists' Seal of Approval
I agree there is almost nothing in common between the Carrier deal and the GM bailout.
But it doesn't surprise me that you have no problem with the bond holders having their money stolen from them by the federal government. They entered into a legally binding agreement and the Obama just came in, rewrote the law, and stole their money. The shareholders took a risk, they had the upside potential when buying the stock that their money could grow much more rapidly than the more conservative bond holders. The bond holders opted for a lower return, but thought their money safe as "By Law" even in a total liquidation of the company they would be first in line to recover their principal. How you can justify the government fucking the people that were depending on them to protect their rights is beyond me, but does explain your position solidly on the left side of the aisle.
As for Mari, you could make a very good living doing exactly the opposite of whatever he does or recommends.
I really can't believe your crocodile tears for GM bondholders as if the covenants were a sacred trust with the Feds. First of all, bondholders are INVESTORS. Maybe not gambling as much as the equity holders but certainly taking on risk. And in that environment, everyone was taking a huge haircut and there was no place to hide. Did the bondholders suffer disproportionately? Perhaps. But there was a greater good, in my opinion and most others. Because had they not been forced to take a haircut GM and Chrysler would have gone under, with consequences to the entire economy that had to be avoided at all costs. So I'm happy to stand by my conclusions. I believe the bondholders got 25 cents on the dollar, which is 25 cents more than I got.
Good lord, man, the way you're whining about this it's almost as if you owned GM Bonds. And I'm pretty sure that ain't true. Could it be principle? Not likely either, LOL!
I was so successful, I'm wondering how much you would appreciate it if I could do the same with FG30.
If he's been on yet another "forced vacation" perhaps he will come slinking back out of whatever hole he crawled into after the election?
Did you forget that counselor?
Look, this isn't partisan for me as you know I was dead set against the bailout. And you are too smart to believe that we would have lost 1 million jobs.
Remember, there were ZERO concessions on wages, benefits, retirement, etc from present day (at the time) UAW workers. All that would have changed had there been no bailout, or if all the money was structured as loans that must be paid off.
Its ridic we lost money on this. Short sighted. And another example of crony capitalism where govt picks winners and losers. How many people in other sectors lost there job in the recession that neither Obama nor Bush gave a shit about? What is so special about auto makers that they are somehow superior to people who make appliances or furniture?
We rewarded incompetence. Ford played by the rules, offered products the public liked and what does the govt do? Props up its competition! Ugh..
but shortly after the bailouts I went out and bought a half a dozen Ford Trucks, including one for my personal use. That's how pissed off I was about the GM bailout.
Too bad those trucks sucked, Fuck political statements, a few months later I virtually gave my Ford away and bought an Infinity for my own personal use. lol
They wouldn't touch a Chevy with your 5" pole. One just got a Ford with a V6 turbo motor and it goes like a raped ape. They've both had Fords for years and never had a serious problem with them, even though they were used for serious long-distance towing.
I had a Dodge 2500 pickup and it was fine, too. I'm agnostic. I'll buy from whoever gives me the best deal. And the best warranty. And trade it in before that expires.
Did you miss that? But the bottom line is the Bush admin made the very loans that were never recovered. So any characterization of the bailout as the “Obama bailout” without acknowledging the Bush role is incorrect.And why I say it is fair to say the fed gov lost money. Further, the Obama bailout SWAT team insisted on direct equity injections rather than short term loans a la Bush. And that is why the government ultimately at least broke even when it exited.
As to “there were ZERO concessions on wages, benefits, retirement, etc from present day (at the time) UAW workers,” I am afraid your memory is very faulty. Both Tier 1 and Tier 2 workers lost benefits; the Job Bank was eliminated or restricted and the trust accepted stock in lieu of an absolute right to pay by GM. Even Ratner said the unions should have been required to give up more but sometimes you have to make concessions to negotiate a deal Jack.
Everyone got a haircut, well, except for the lawyers, but that’s good.
As to whether it is “ridiculous” that we lost money on this, that is a “too big too fail” policy call. Both presidents were willing to take the risk, and the experts are divided on this point.
I don't know myself. Neither I nor you have the knowledge to make a call on this complex question.
Look, this isn't partisan for me as you know I was dead set against the bailout. And you are too smart to believe that we would have lost 1 million jobs.
Remember, there were ZERO concessions on wages, benefits, retirement, etc from present day (at the time) UAW workers. All that would have changed had there been no bailout, or if all the money was structured as loans that must be paid off.
Its ridic we lost money on this. Short sighted. And another example of crony capitalism where govt picks winners and losers. How many people in other sectors lost there job in the recession that neither Obama nor Bush gave a shit about? What is so special about auto makers that they are somehow superior to people who make appliances or furniture?
We rewarded incompetence. Ford played by the rules, offered products the public liked and what does the govt do? Props up its competition! Ugh...
The "give backs" were for FUTURE hires. Not any of the then current employees took a penny less in salary or benefits.
If the govt i.e the taxpayer,r had to give/sacrfice, then so should the people whose jobs we were saving should have as well.
And Ratner, a lefty, was on my side on this re: union concessions.
And yes they did make concessions:
"The UAW also accepted limited concessions for existing “Tier 1” members. The union agreed to suspend their cost-of-living adjustments and performance bonuses. The union also agreed to reduce paid time off and place restrictions on overtime. The union further agreed to eliminate the JOBS bank that paid laid-off employees nearly full wages for not working."
But you are deviating from my criticism of Ed’s post. His view is that the Carrier concessions can be fairly compared to the auto bailout concessions – which he seemed to blame on Obama rather than both presidents. I say they are not remotely comparable since the auto concessions were made as a “last resort” to same to only jobs but to save the auto makers from liquidation while the Carrier concessions are a “first resort” to save jobs for overpaid (relative to Mexico ) workers. Classic false equivalency. So you can’t simply use “Ed’s calculator” to figure a cost per job saved. And I’m lost as to how he concludes Nick is a hypocrite.
Do you honestly disagree with that premise
First off let's get rid of the red herring of Obama's vs. Bush's bailout. Indeed Bush initiated the intervention but the vast majority of the "nuts and bolts" of the executive actions and decisions were taken under the Obama administration so yes, the Bush and Obama bailout. It was bad with either label.
UTC/Carrier not at risk? Maybe that's because they are managed better than GM or Chrysler? Ford came out OK. and Chrysler was saved? Saved for whom? Fiat?
I'm tired of the government picking the winners and losers (Bush, Obama or Trump). I contend a legal bankruptcy proceeding would have had a better long term result. The only reason Obama did what he did was to make sure the UAW got a better deal than did the other stakeholders. Your confliction is demonstrated between your first post where you assume liquidation was to be the result but then you later admit you don't have the knowledge (I would rather call it wisdom) to make the call on the correct policy. My wisdom is of course nothing more than mine but I contend a legal bankruptcy would have convinced existing stake holders and potential future investors to stay in and to get back in and to draw new investors in to a far greater level than what is present today. The recovery we now live in might not have been labelled as the "new normal" and maybe Jake's position in GM might not have actually gone to zero. Also, let's make sure the record properly reflects the more correct cost closer to $41,000/job (actually much higher)
But I did achieve my goal. I knew my post would lure you out of semi-retirement.
-- Modified on 12/2/2016 9:43:23 PM
of the “Obama bailout” and “Republicans and Democrats” into the discussion. (Hint – it wasn’t Jake).
And it is not entirely unreasonable for you to speculate that the “auto companies” did not face liquidation and could have been restructured without a bailout, although your failure to distinguish between Chrysler (very unlikely) and GM (possibly) renders your “wisdom” on this point a bit suspect. The experts from both administrations after full study of the balance sheets did not see it that way, or at least concluded that a equity injection work out was the way to go - and I certainly lack the knowledge to say they were wrong.
But I don’t see you saying anymore that the bondholders would have fared any better any better in a normal Chapter 11 reorganization. Yes, the secured bondholders (which btw were mostly Chrysler) would have had priority over the unsecured union claims, and the unsecured BHs would have had equal priority with the union.
Take out the billions injected by the government, however, and those bondholders –almost certainly the Chrysler BHs- would most likely have received the same if not a worse haircut. You can’t really argue otherwise can you
God you're such an insufferable prick.
At least ed actually argues on facts, even if he does torture them. You just whine. Continually. Not one single other thing to contribute.
Must be your anal prolapse, Roger...Get to work on that.
PS: It's long since obvious who you are....Roger
Would have that pic "saved." Pretty sick. And you have no clue who I am. You're too stupid.
Oh, and "You're too stupid" is quite a comeback. Right up there with your usual pathetic drivel. I really thought you could do better than that but you've disappointed even my most modest hopes.
...He modestly said of himself: "Everything I say is smart."
You can take that to the bank...the piggy bank.
Had Obama simply marked all the money as loans, and not handouts, we would have recouped all the money.
But I am not big on crony capitalism Jake and I am leery about this side of Trump economics going forward.
Yes, its populist, yes it it will be politically advantageous for him, but I have serious doubts whether this will be good for America, as a whole.
This may be the first time in my life I MAY end up agreeing with Charles Blow, but I just wish he was with me when I was ripping the auto bailout.
A thousand jobs saved at one plant and President Trump hasn't been sworn in yet. 
IMO anyone complaining about the Carrier deal is a sour grapes loser.
Since I'm a math wiz I'll simplify this for spelling tools.
1000 jobs at average minimum forty grand a year = 40 million, year 1.
For keeping 1000 employees in the USA, Carrier is receiving a measly $ 700,000 a year in tax breaks.
Seven million over ten years is a pittance compared to over 400 million in employee wages over the same time frame.
USA Corporate taxes are obscene, third highest in the World, only surpassed by UAE and Puerto Rico.
Democrat hierarchy lost the strategy needed to win when they selected HRC to run for President against the heart beat of America.
They doubled down on losing propositions when they retained Pelosi as their spokesperson. TYVM
When a Democrat acts like he's more intelligent than the rest of us, please remember, Democrats are the best actors.
Jack, I'm glad to see you have an open mind, unlike many of our lefty friends with their repeated idiosyncrasies continually leading to their petulant failures.
If I remember correctly, you were not hoping for President Trump.
Glad to have you on the Make America Great Again team.
The best is yet to come.
To me, the devil is in the details, so I don't know if the Carrier deal is good for America, but it is obviously good on the micro level, at least for the people keeping their jobs and great on the PR and political level.
But with all that said, wtf is the Dem politician response going to be when he is on the national/cable news every so often announcing yet another win for the middle class with a deal similar to Carrier?
Are they suddenly going to make the conservative argument against these type of deals and banish them for a generation from being considered at the ballot box by these blue collar guys and gals?
If they remain silent in the future over similar deals, they look petty.
If they criticize them, they look out of touch with the plight of the little guy and will face his wrath.
If they join in and cheer, Trump sweeps to a second term.
Trump has put the Dem party in a virtual head lock and in the process has made Obama look like a guy who doesn't care or didn't have the intellect/knowledge/balls to pull this off.
So what should the Dem strategy be?
Welcome back to the two of you!
No, Trump was never my guy and was last of the 17 on stage, to be honest. lol
But yes, I voted for him and of course I have an open mind and hope he succeeds.
I am certain I will rip him at one point but that can wait until after inauguration. lol
But I give you props. You were on the Trump bandwagon early and were loyal.
I hope he does MAGA. For everyone.
You caught a lot of shit for your support of Trump, plenty of it from me. Well, you were right and I was wrong. I still hate the guy but he won. I'll be watching him very warily. But you at least deserve some props for picking the right horse.
And that's all the slack you are likely to get from me.
But no more pictures of people walking on all fours.
Still, if he fucks up I reserve the right to yell: "I TOLD YOU SO!" And I promise to cut Trump all the slack you and your fellow Trump supporters gave Obama.
Or to subsidies Billion dollar companies to stay doesn't sit well with me. He talk about being tough to corporate America and now he caves in. Maybe he isn't the deal maker he led us all to believe. But time will tell.
Look, we have to do something to bring back jobs and keep them here so I don't have a problem with an incentive to do so.
The question for me is, is the incentive reasonable for the taxpayer or did he give away the farm like Obama did with the auto bail out and screw the taxpayer up the pooper?
I am not going to rip Barry and praise Trump re: this issue. We all now know the details of the auto bailout but I don't know all the details of this deal.
We will find out soon whether these type of deals are winners. Like you said, time will tell.
It's the political way, I understand that. Time will tell if this is a continuing trend of doing business and it's effect, but the layoff is small so we won't see effect here.But when Trump for months blast politician who did exactly what he just did is hypocritical or a lie. He got a lot of votes on a false premise of him being this so called "Tough Guy","Grand Negotiator"....His sold his "followers" on a false bill of goods.
Just be straight up and say, " I'll save us the jobs, but it may cost us"...easy peasy
-- Modified on 12/1/2016 6:50:27 PM
-- Modified on 12/1/2016 6:53:18 PM
They think he is a god tonight.
Maybe you didn't listen to him but he said on numerous occasions he was willing to negotiate and part of negotiating, for him is win/win, i.e. giving the other side something they want too.
Thats how I took Trump and I am sure his most die hard followers did as well. These deals will only bolster their support of him, not lessen it, regardless of what I think of these deals and like I said, I am skeptical of this type of economics.
-- Modified on 12/1/2016 10:18:34 PM
Trump has so far reneged on three and followed through on one promise. One of my Trump supporting neighbors told me recently, it looks like they were sold a basket of nuclear laced kaka during the campaign. I told him the days are still young...lol
Maybe you didn't listen to him but he said on numerous occasions he was willing to negotiate and part of negotiating, for him is win/win, i.e. giving the other side something they want too.
Thats how I took Trump and I am sure his most die hard followers did as well. These deals will only bolster their support of him, not lessen it, regardless of what I think of these deals and like I said, I am skeptical of this type of economics.
-- Modified on 12/1/2016 10:18:34 PM
He had to have the win there and he had the leverage due to the parent's company's dependence on Government contracts to make it happen. It was a definite win for him.
Now looking at the bigger picture, or as using the Carrier deal as a template for future "deals" to keep companies from abandoning the US. I just don't see any way this can be done at the macro level. The only thing that will keep US companies in the US against the allure of cheap wages in foreign countries is to create an atmosphere where they will "want" to stay here. Not as easy as it sounds of course
-- Modified on 12/2/2016 8:13:19 AM
To me, the devil is in the details, so I don't know if the Carrier deal is good for America, but it is obviously good on the micro level, at least for the people keeping their jobs and great on the PR and political level.
Also keep in mind that both parties are out of touch with the electorate. They both claim different ideological grounds, but in reality do as little as possible to maintain their seat at the table for another 2-6 years...
But "attacking political opponents who don't lockstep" is NOT fascism. That's good old American politics and has been practiced by every American pol in the history of the country