Yeah. I understand economics.
Your answer does not address the whinng.
Yeah. I understand economics.
Your answer does not address the whinng.
I highly doubt Trump is going to do anything that might disgruntle the Saudis; after all, he registered 8 new companies in Saudi Arabia in August 2015, shortly after he kicked off his presidential campaign. Furthermore, in a rally in Alabama, he had the following to say about the Saudis:
The Hill
The Washington Post
Forgive me if I'm anything but skeptical with respect to anything Trump has to say about Saudi Arabia. As for the rest of you living in a velvet Trumpian dream, by all means, continue to be the fodder of his deceit.
However, words have specific meanings!
A subsidy is a benefit given by the government to groups or individuals, usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction. The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public.
A subsidy is a form of financial aid or support extended to an economic sector (or institution, business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy.[1] Although commonly extended from government, the term subsidy can relate to any type of support – for example from NGOs or as implicit subsidies. Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, accelerated depreciation, rent rebates)
To convince people that other financial practices are subsidies is only dumbing down society. The left loves dumbing down their voters. They do this with so many other words too.
Is this Trump's master plan for reviving the flagging American economy? Protectionism?
Massive tariffs on Mexican, Chinese and God-know's-who-else's imports? Ban Saudi oil? Tear up all trade deals?
Protectionism has been tried many times before...it ALWAYS fails...miserably. Smoot Hawley for one...which many blame for largely causing the Great Depression. And it always hurts the poor/middle classes the most as prices shoot upwards while the rich get MUCH richer from the added profits and the new monopolies they enjoy.
If he actually believes this and it is just not pandering to ignorant voters who simply do not know better AND he manages to get these protectionist measures through Congress...kiss prosperity goodbye for many years for the masses (unless you are rich - then it's time to celebrate).
The more this guy talks since the election, the less confident I am that he has the remotest idea how to run a country...let alone one as powerful as America.
Online references are not official, especially these editable public or group "Pedias.". Just because someone chooses to call ity a subsidy, does not make it correct.
I see I found the crowd "Oh... Its true because I read it on the internet."
Your choice...
People judge intelligence of others by factors like this.
tax subsidy
a reduction in tax in order to reduce the cost of producing food, a product, etc. and to help to keep its price low:
But whether the subsidies were in the form of special tax breaks OR cash grants totalling $7 million over the same period makes absolutely no difference to anyone. Not to the company - they are indifferent between $7 million in tax savings or $7 million in cash grants - it's math. Not to investors. Not to the state of Indiana. Not to taxpayers.
Why should we want to pay more for our gasoline?
The citizens of your counrty may be brainwashed into thinking higher energy prices are good but Americans know better
I'm not hearing any whining from anyone I know. I think you're reading the wrong papers.
Who said you should want to?
I said it would benefit the world.
Think about global implications.
He seems to be using a very cause-effect, hammer and nail approach.
If you hit the nail with the hammer, it goes into the wood. You can debate the angle of the strike, the weight of the hammer and the density of the wood, but the action causes the effect.
That said, Trump is saying that goods produced in the USA by factories in the USA that employ people in the USA have greater benefit to the people and the communities of the USA than do the same products produced abroad.
The economics of the Carrier deal reveal this. The tax benefits to both the Country and the State of Indiana outweigh the tax incentives paid to Carrier.
The average taxable income of the jobs restored by the deal is about $77,000 per year for 1100 jobs. this includes the taxable benefits.
JFK worked the same deal in his administration but did so in response to a big price increase fro US Steel changing the government purchasing to Bethlehem Steel.
The USA is the Big Dog in most deals. It's time we had a guy who leveraged the advantages to the benefit of the population.
Donald Trump Carrier Deal: It Is a Good Deal
The US imports only about 11% of the oil supply from the Saudi's.
The US and other countries crushed the Saudi's a few years ago.
The Saudi's and other Opec countries are not the biggest kids on the block anymore
This is going to be the only wall he is going to actually run in to....AND he manages to get these protectionist measures through Congress...
Sorry but America already gave at the office
The world will have to rattle its tin cup somewhere else
If you raise energy prices based on misplaced fear of the man-made-global-warming hoax you hurt America without helping anyone
I thought you might latch onto warming when that is far from the point...
Whatever your warped reasoning is the answer is still no
I heard a pundit say something regarding statements from recent Liberal Politicians and from Trump.
With Obama and with Clinton, we were directed to take them literally, but not seriously.
This resulted in Obama being given a pass on his statements citing the Video tape causing the Benghazi Massacre and Clinton being lauded for informing that it depends on "is" is.
Trump says things that come in broad strokes and must be taken seriously, but not literally.
I have a feeling that when Trump draws a red line, crossing it will bring immediate, devastating and exemplary results to the crossers of the line. I think world leaders have the same feeling.
That feeling from world leaders is absent under Obama. He is taken literally but most definitely not seriously.
We don't know exactly what Carrier got in return for not moving the jobs. But considering they have stated that they would save $65 million by moving the jobs to Mexico, there is no way the tax savings could be that much. So the reason they are not moving is clearly PR related.
And, no offense, but you are naive if you think Carrier won't move the plant as soon as they believe the PR hit has diminished. They stand to save tens of millions by the move. Eventually they will do it...that is what smart corporations do - cut costs and maximize profits.
By then, Trump won't care and that will be that.
Although I totally agree with lowering taxes on businesses. That is not enough. And short of bribing companies to stay (always a bad idea), there is no way more corporations will not bolt. The production costs are simply too high in America...especially for relatively low tech jobs.
I literally have no idea what you said there. I have a feeling it's meant to malign Obama and defend Trump, but beyond that, I'm without recourse.
Obama is all show and no go. All talk and no walk.
Trump is a man of action.
Obama is a word smith that carefully constructs every statement read with passion from a written script to create an impression and not have binding effect. Red Line? Arab Spring? Nice words.
Trump is a chief executive the sets a direction and assigns experts to execute the vision.
To criticize Obama, you examine the outcomes and compare them to his threats and promises. In so doing you find that his words are mushy, his rhetoric is empty and his word is trash.
To criticize Trump, you examine his statements and pick out one of the many stray statements as he thinks out loud at a microphone meandering toward an idea. That is how one misstatement of the Mexican rapists and criminals is blown up to be a policy statement by the devious trying to mislead the uninformed. Never mind that this idea has been refined and better focused as time moved forward.
Obama said that he is trying to save jobs. In the meantime, the household income suffers and the number of the unemployed in the USA is at an all time high. As an aside, there are more unemployed right now than the total population of the country in 1900.
Trump wandered around the idea of keeping jobs in the USA and, before even taking office, he has convinced Carrier to keep some jobs in the US.
That is walking the walk after talking the talk.
Better?
It's deeper than that even. Obama is a try to make everyone happy without offending anyone kind of guy. Trump is the opposite. Trump does what he thinks is right, based on his success in the past--the hell with what anyone thinks of him. Obama is a blank slate, with no history of accomplishment except walking that fine line which I outlined in the second sentence.
One man is a man of action. The other weighs his options, sometimes to the point of doing nothing. If anything, we know this--Trump will not be a man who does nothing.
I'm not sure that will make for us a good leader in this time of conflicting interests. But, he will make it interesting.
Excellent points all around!
I'm almost daily reminded of the Chinese Curse which wishes for the recipient that they live in "Interesting" times.
In my so far unremarkable life, I find that those times that have been "interesting" have also been filled withy uncertainty, worry, and challenges of various difficulty.
I hope that the parts of the upcoming Trump years that promise to be "interesting" produce great advance and not great disappointment.
That's 2012
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?