- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 62,606
- Reaction score
- 19,344
- Location
- Lower Mainland of BC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
From the article:t’s now clear those hopes [based on Trump's steel tariffs and US Steel's $750 million investment to modernize Gary Works, its largest North American plant] will not translate into new steel jobs, even after the city and state offered the firm a $47 million tax break package.
The whole point of the investment is to make the plant more efficient, so the incentives will help finance a project that city and company officials concede could ultimately result in job losses, not gains.
Yet another opportunity to of Trump's policies -- things that "Trump Country" people say they like -- to use the age old adage: "We told you so."
It's one thing to have one's political preferences and whatnot, but when professionals apply their specific and technical subject matter knowledge and experience developed initially with formal training and enhanced with years and years of professional applications of their skills and abilities, and, in turn, share it for the public's benefit, that's not politics. Trump and his supporters believe and would have others believe that their lack of knowledge and experience observing and analyzing "this or that" genre of phenomena is somehow more valid that are those professionals' deep knowledge and understanding of the same events and trends is just ridiculous. Furthermore, such disregard detriments not only the individuals who hew to their politically popular notions rather than to expert analysis, but also the country in general.
- Tariffs -- Modernizing factories in the 21st century means replacing labor with capital, not upgrading the employee lunch room. Those tariffs have benefitted the stockholders, not workers.
- Taxes -- It's becoming increasingly clear that Trump's tax cuts and the rhetoric that advanced them was but "smoke and mirrors."
Those people (1) can't or won't perform their own rigorous analysis and (2) reject that presented to them by entities/people who can and do. One cannot help folks who thus exhibit willful ignorance and neither can they or will they sagaciously help themselves. What is there to do with people like that? Nothing but "cut bait" and let them suffer the consequences of their intransigence.
From the article:t’s now clear those hopes [based on Trump's steel tariffs and US Steel's $750 million investment to modernize Gary Works, its largest North American plant] will not translate into new steel jobs, even after the city and state offered the firm a $47 million tax break package.
The whole point of the investment is to make the plant more efficient, so the incentives will help finance a project that city and company officials concede could ultimately result in job losses, not gains.
Yet another opportunity to of Trump's policies -- things that "Trump Country" people say they like -- to use the age old adage: "We told you so."
It's one thing to have one's political preferences and whatnot, but when professionals apply their specific and technical subject matter knowledge and experience developed initially with formal training and enhanced with years and years of professional applications of their skills and abilities, and, in turn, share it for the public's benefit, that's not politics. Trump and his supporters believe and would have others believe that their lack of knowledge and experience observing and analyzing "this or that" genre of phenomena is somehow more valid that are those professionals' deep knowledge and understanding of the same events and trends is just ridiculous. Furthermore, such disregard detriments not only the individuals who hew to their politically popular notions rather than to expert analysis, but also the country in general.
- Tariffs -- Modernizing factories in the 21st century means replacing labor with capital, not upgrading the employee lunch room. Those tariffs have benefitted the stockholders, not workers.
- Taxes -- It's becoming increasingly clear that Trump's tax cuts and the rhetoric that advanced them was but "smoke and mirrors."
Those people (1) can't or won't perform their own rigorous analysis and (2) reject that presented to them by entities/people who can and do. One cannot help folks who thus exhibit willful ignorance and neither can they or will they sagaciously help themselves. What is there to do with people like that? Nothing but "cut bait" and let them suffer the consequences of their intransigence.
You do, however, have to admit that Mr. Trump's tax changes have enabled large corporations to "buy back" significant amounts of their outstanding stock.
This, of course, reduces the number of shares that receive dividend pay outs.
That, of course, means that the same size pie gets cut into fewer pieces.
Naturally that means that the pieces into which the same sized pie gets divided are larger than when the pie was cut into more pieces.
And, of course, those who receive the (now) larger dividends are taxpayers.
So that means that taxpayers have benefited from Mr. Trump's tax changes.
Q.E.D.
Right?
Whether the recipients of the "larger piece of the pie," as it were, are/aren't taxpayers has what to do with anything I wrote? Nothing having greater merit than a line that "grasps at straws."
It's nice that you can demonstrate something that's ingermane to my remarks, but that you can -- and you have indeed shown that it's likely the recipients are taxpayers, though, inasmuch as you want to pursue a obtusely non-sequitur line, not necessarily US taxpayers; moreover, you've not demonstrated that most or a material plurality of the firms that bought back stocks have subsequently paid dividends -- alters not the validity and relevance of my comments.
I didn't dispute a thing that you said, I only pointed out something that you hadn't said.
PS - I do hope that you realize that what I posted was the latest version of the officially approved, "Team Trump" certified, currently operative, "Truth of the Day" and not something that I would expect anyone with more operative intelligence than three day old road kill has to actually believe.
PPS - Mr. Trump does NOT "smoke" but I refrain from making any comment on his emotional attachment to mirrors.
I didn't dispute a thing that you said, I only pointed out something that you hadn't said.
PS - I do hope that you realize that what I posted was the latest version of the officially approved, "Team Trump" certified, currently operative, "Truth of the Day" and not something that I would expect anyone with more operative intelligence than three day old road kill has to actually believe.
PPS - Mr. Trump does NOT "smoke" but I refrain from making any comment on his emotional attachment to mirrors.
Off-Topic:
Red and off-topic:
I don't know why folks quote one's remarks and don't, when the person doing the quoting has nothing to say that relate directly to the content they've quoted, somehow indicate they have no desire for readers to construe that the subsequent comments have nothing to do with subject/theme the remarks that were quoted. Is it really too much to directly state that one's comments have that nature? They're myriad ways to do so:
[*=1]Simply preceding one's comments with "off-topic."
[*=1]Including an introductory clause to the effect of "My comments that follow have no relation to your comments, but your comments inspired them..."It's not at all unusual for one's comments to inspire off-topic thoughts, but it is unusual for the person expressing the off-topic thought to refrain from "warning" readers not to construe his/her remarks as topical germane to the comments that inspired the off-topic. Not giving readers some sort of "warning" to that effect is tantamount to a written analogue of Tourette's Syndrome.
I like your second suggestion and I'll try to remember to use it when appropriate.
Now, I'm not PROMISING you realize, only saying that I'll try to remember.
Okay.
BTW, there is another way to express an off-topic idea, and I didn't mention it because I figured it too obvious to merit mentioning: just click "Reply" rather than "Reply With Quote" and refrain from sharing what inspired the thought or attributing it to whatever set of remarks inspired it.
since the responses tend to be posted somewhat after the post that "inspired" them, without adding the bit that "inspired" the reply tends to fall with a thud.
How does "reply" differ from ""reply to thread" (if at all)?
From Reuters
U.S. Steel wins tax breaks from one of America's poorest cities
GARY, Indiana (Reuters) - United States Steel Corporation founded Gary, Indiana in 1906 - naming it after co-founder Elbert Henry Gary - and the city’s fortunes have been closely tied to the company ever since.
When the firm started losing business to cheap Asian imports in the 1970s, waves of layoffs followed as Gary became a haven of blight, crime and lost population.
Last year, the city harbored hopes for a revival after President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on steel imports and the company planned a $750 million investment to modernize Gary Works, its largest North American plant.
But it’s now clear those hopes will not translate into new steel jobs, even after the city and state offered the firm a $47 million tax break package.
COMMENT:-
Somehow I can't quite get my mind wrapped around "Slowing Of Job Loss = Job Creation".
Admittedly the tax breaks did result in an increase in average income (at least the incomes of the owners went up and an increase to a part of a population will result in an increase in the population's average).
which shows why the increase in average may be correct mathematically but does not necessarily present meaningful information about a big part of the population. You may earn 2 dollars more while I earn not additional income but this does not mean that I have 1 "average dollar" additionally in my pocket.
Also often an increase in waged reflects the fact that as unemployment falls people earn more because they work more and because we have less part time workers which is sure a good thing but does not reveal any radical change from previous trends. And let's not mention after effects of prior policies. In CA we had laws passed before the 2016 elections about a gradual increase of the minimum wages in many places over a couple of years. Such legislation did bring more dollars to some low-skilled workers in 2018 even though the decision was made a few years ago.
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?