On January 16, president-elect Donald Trump chastised Paul Ryan for proposing “border adjustments”. Today President Trump promises a Major Border Tax and pulled the US out of TPP.
President Donald Trump said Monday the U.S. will impose a “very major” border tax on companies that move some operations overseas and signed a memorandum withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as he sharpens his focus on recasting America’s international trade relations.
“We’ve been talking about this for a long time,” Mr. Trump said as he signed the order removing the U.S. from the trade pact with 11 other nations. He said the move will be a “great thing for the American worker.”
Before withdrawing from TPP, Mr. Trump met with business leaders at the White House and asked them to devise a plan to boost U.S. manufacturing.
Regulations, he said, have “gotten out of control,” and while he described himself as a friend of the environment, he said “some of that stuff makes it impossible to get anything done.”
“There will be no country that’s going to be faster, better, more fair,” Mr. Trump said.
He promised incentives for businesses that produce and hire in the U.S. but warned the leaders, “if you go to another country…we are going to be imposing a very major border tax.”
“We don’t have free trade because we’re the only one that makes it easy to come into the country,” Mr. Trump said.
Among the CEOs in attendance were the leaders of Ford Motor Co., Lockheed Martin Corp., Under Armour Inc., and Whirlpool Corp., according to the companies, as well as Michael Dell and Tesla Motors Inc. Chief Executive Elon Musk.
Dow Chemical Co. Chief Executive Officer Andrew Liveris said after the meeting that Mr. Trump asked them to come back to him within 30 days with specific ideas to boost U.S. manufacturing. He said Mr. Trump had to take a phone call halfway through the meeting but then invited the 12 chief executives to join him and continue their conversation in the Oval Office.
Mr. Liveris said the executives discussed at length with Mr. Trump his proposal to set up a tax on U.S. companies that manufacture goods in other countries and then import them back into the U.S.
“We did talk about the border tax quite a bit, and we did talk about the sorts of industries that could be helped or hurt by that,” Mr. Liveris said. “I would take the president at his word here. He’s not going to do anything to harm competitiveness.”
Mr. Trump has described his “border tax” in the past as a selective 35% tax on companies that outsource production to other countries and then import goods back to the U.S. That is different from the “border adjustment” that is a key feature of the House Republicans’ tax plan. Mr. Trump has criticized that idea, which would tax all imports and exempt exports from U.S. business taxation.
Border Tax vs. Border Adjustment
Apparently a “border tax” is selective punishment but a “border adjustment” isn’t.
“Anytime I hear border adjustment, I don’t love it because usually it means we’re going to get adjusted into a bad deal. That’s what happens.”
Trade Hardball
Ryan used the words “border adjustment” because border taxes are against WTO rules. Does selective enforcement make them WTO-compatible?
Color me skeptical. Does Trump care? Clearly not. It may take years before any WTO complaints get heard.
For further discussion on WTO violations and why border taxes are a bad idea, please see Untangling Trump’s Incompatible Goals on the US Dollar, Tariffs, China, Republican Tax Plan.
My position: Trump’s tariffs may save a few thousand manufacturing jobs in the short run, but the net effect will be a huge loss of jobs in the long run.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Mish wrote: “My position: Trump’s tariffs may save a few thousand manufacturing jobs in the short run, but the net effect will be a huge loss of jobs in the long run.”
———-
Agreed. This is the first nail in Trump’s coffin. When will the air be cut off?
LikeLike
Mere talk by Trump has already saved tens of thousands of jobs. Free trade eviscerated the UK before WW1, while Germany, and the US thrived with tariffs. What planet are you people living on?
LikeLike
10s of thousands? I highly doubt that.
Most of these announcements were planned for well in advance of Trump but they are now announcing it as a way of spinning it to curry favour with Trump. He may have saved Carrier jobs but had to offer tax incentive for them and possibly a Ford plant but that’s really it.
LikeLike
First nail?
This is what he campaigned (and won) on.
LikeLike
You’re presuming, of course, that Trump does nothing about regulations and taxes. Which is ridiculous, because he has talked about that all the time.
LikeLike
“This is the first nail in Trump’s coffin. When will the air be cut off?”
At this point, the Rep party would be committing political suicide if they’d agree to impeach him let alone impeaching him and removing him from office. So, all of the anti-Trump people can stop holding their breath.
I don’t support all of Trump’s positions, but massive deregulation, the many bad ones that were simple crony deals to reduce competition, the huge impediments to small businesses which can’t afford to jump through the regulatory hoops often created in the first place on behalf of the huge corporations that CAN afford to jump through those hoops, elimination of the exemptions from anti-competitive behavior laws within the medical/pharma sector and a government mandating competitive bidding from that sector for any government funded purchases, those sort of things most definitely WOULD NOT HAVE COME from ANY other candidate. Just getting our medical costs under control and in line with the rest of the world would eliminate most or all of our annual budget deficit.
I wish him the very best of luck because without -RADICAL- changes, we are toast in the long run.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am SO confused.
If tariffs increase trade imbalances leading to the loss of our industries and driving greater job losses and lower real wages, and if doing nothing does the same eventually, what is the argument? Surely no one will argue that our trade deficits are shrinking.
And we would have ZERO economy if we constricted debt, so apparently THE answer is not trade OR jobs, but MORE debt.
We feel entitled to not have to work at jobs we don’t like for wages we feel beneath us, and also feel entitled to a certain quality of life…healthcare, housing etc., so jobs and industry would appear irrelevant.
Our financial utopia obviously lies in debt, so what are we arguing about??
Brother, can you lend met a dime???
LikeLike
I’m not defending tarrifs, but: “tariffs increase trade imbalances” is clearly nonsense.
The US is a net importer in Chinese-American trade. As Chinese-American trade approaches zero, Chinese-American trade imbalance also approaches zero.
The real proposition is a net reduction of trade with low-wage partners.
The benefit is increased US production for its own consumption.
The cost is decreased US production for the consumption of others.
In theory, price of low-labor-cost products increases and selection of low-labor-cost products declines.
The result hurts some Americans, but helps some others.
LikeLike
Liberals are petrified Trump will succeed. Thus they say everything he does will fail. Just as they having been doing from the beginning. He is so open with what he is doing. He is driving the news cycle. He is such a force that no one knows how to counter him.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t necessarily agree that it is a nail. Treasury yields keep climbing – as they rise the populist position will be in favor of tariffs.
This tariff stuff may not be the brightest idea, but it is merely a symptom of an obese government borrowing itself into these circumstances for the last 30 years.
My statement at the time still holds true: whoever won the 2016 election would be a one-termer. The economics are going to catch up to the POTUS because no electable candidate had any intention of cutting spending.
LikeLike
Trump labels China the economic enemy, yet TPP is not a China deal. Seems he either doesn’t get it or his supporters don’t. The point of TPP is expand trade outside of China and to limit China’s economic influence. TPP means a hegemony but one with America calling the shots.
Also seems everyone is focusing on imports and ignoring exports. Nobody talks about the billions in U.S. exports going to Mexico(236 billion in 2015). And no one is focusing on the effect of forcing Americans to pay more for goods and services whether that will be inflationary or whether it simply makes the U.S. less competitive if our products simply cost more to build
LikeLike
Should we really care about the higher cost of goods if wages are much higher and taxes much lower?
LikeLike
And that is going to happen when Trump waves his magic wand and says “Make it so”?
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter as long as we believe there is no connection between our consumption and our jobs. People around the world, especially the poor ones, are standing in line to loan us money to sustain our exceptional lifestyles. Just as corporations around the world are lining up to invest trillions in new technologies that rescue us from labor….they are so loving that way.
By the way, is Germany still loaning money to Greece so they will buy German products…knowing they will NEVER see that money?
LikeLike
The TPP wasn’t a trade deal. It was a way for corporations to control government policy. It was a bad deal and I’m glad it’s being killed.
LikeLiked by 5 people
precisely
LikeLike
Trump’s action does not preclude a different TPP that is US centric. The current TPP is a bad deal for the US.
LikeLike
What products does the US export?
1) Refined Petroleum ($103B),
2) Cars ($60.8B),
3) Planes, Helicopters, and/or Spacecraft ($53.2B)
4) Vehicle Parts ($38.4B)
5) Packaged Medicaments ($38.1B)
What products does the US import?
1) Crude Petroleum ($230B),
2) Cars ($155B),
3) Computers ($92B),
4) Refined Petroleum ($69.2B)
5) Vehicle Parts ($62.8B).
Most US trade is swapping of oil and machine parts.
Given the US budget deficit routinely runs $100B per month, anything smaller than these can be absorbed by your tax dollars.
LikeLike
Since China is basically NOT a free market trader(they impose tariffs or internally sabotage foreign companies) I think its reasonable to force them to modify their system.
Plus they should abide by some minimal standards of pollution control-their rivers run purple, the air is toxic and the dust affects neighboring nations.
LikeLike
China IS communist and wants to stay that way. They only entertain capitalism and “free trade” to the extent that is advances THEIR agenda. The do not care about trading partners, they care about DOMINATION. Their are not simply competitors, but predatory. Their winning is our subjugation. Read what communists believe, what their goals..agenda ARE and then decide. American business wanted to have access to China’s cheap labor source, and did not give one damn about America, freedom, capitalism or anything else…as long as they were WINNING. China plays the long game and they are positioning themselves to win, but it is NOT about money or trade. It is about advancing their communist agenda of world domination…and they have PLENTY of allies right here in America that would welcome it with open arms.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-23/china-says-its-ready-assume-world-leadership
LikeLike
Iceland in 16 Days: Day 10, Westfjords, Hólmavík
https://mishmoments.com/2017/01/23/iceland-in-16-days-day-10-westfjords/
Mish
LikeLike
He’s walking the walk after talking the talk when he stole the rustbelt from Hillary and dems, he’s going to be the unNAFTA prez
LikeLike
Border tax, border adjustment call it what you will. They will not work for two reasons: Automation in manufacturing. 2) The other country will devalue their currency to compensate (or the currency will devalue by it self). The end result will be fewer jobs and more inflation. Add that to the expense on infrastructure and you get a tax and spend president LOL
LikeLike
Inflation?
fewer jobs = less demand (absent another source of income)
Anyways, deflation on tap as asset bubble(s) collapse.
LikeLike
An American President who puts American workers FIRST.
The TPP was 3,000 pages long…why? For Free Trade?
It’s kinda nice. And NEVER has been tried before…(in recent history)
LikeLike
F the WTO.
Trump promised to put America First. And he’s following through on his promise. Killing TPP is a HUGE accomplishment!!! It will stop US companies from relocating their plants to Asian nations and it will stop the importation of more foreigners to steal jobs from our citizens!
The media continues to bash Trump. Nothing positive. All negative.
The libs wanted TPP dismantled. Now that Trump has done it do you think the libs will give him any credit? Not on your life. They overly exaggerate the negatives and ignore the positives. The essence of FAKE NEWS!!!
Go Trump Go!
LikeLike
Hillary was for the TPP and then when her focus groups told her not to be, She switched sides. Since she’s always 100% in her donors favor, she would have passed the TPP under the guise of it’s having been changed to satisfy her concerns.
LikeLike
The “libs” and conservatives were always in favor of the TPP. The progressives (Bernie and his ilk) not so much.
LikeLike
You’re claiming that Bernie supporters aren’t libs?
We must be looking at different dictionaries.
LikeLike
It’s a way for Bernie Commies to pretend they aren’t Marxists.
LikeLike
“but the net effect will be a huge loss of jobs in the long run.”
…
For whom*?
…
*which country
LikeLike
All of them.
LikeLike
For all. Other countries aren’t going to sit idly by and do nothing while the US levies tariffs; they’ll levy their own in retaliation. Trade and economic activity will slow, and everyone involved will be worse off. Across-the-board protectionism has a proven track record of making making the problems it seeks to solve worse.
LikeLike
US has the world’s largest trade deficit for decades. How is this sustainable? Explain how (additional) protectionism is in China’s interest.
LikeLike
Well, Jimmy Hoffa just published a letter praising Trump… never thought I’d ever see that. Looks like the Democrats are losing its decades old support from the major unions as Trump has them included in the hiddle at the White House. Whoa to the Democtaptic Party. They have just become the party of the SJWs.. and Hollywood. Good luck with that.
LikeLike
I’m not sure who expects will do the jobs. Even if you get the labor force participation rate back up to the all time high that adds about 7M “workers”. But since he wants to remove the 8-10M “illegals” and also restrict legal immigration I just don’t see where the workers will come from.
LikeLike
Robots
Besides, your math is off …about double the 7 million.
per Census Bureau 324 million Americans
https://www.census.gov/
Current participation rate 62.7% … ATH 67.3%
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART
LikeLike
The labor force participation rate is the percentage of working age Americans(16 years and older), not all Americans. The precise number is 254,742,000. https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.htm
LikeLike
You are right
I am wrong
but the number still > 10 million
LikeLike
Many people are not working now, NOT due to lack of jobs, but lack of jobs that they WANT, and that will remain as long as we subsidize those not willing to take the prevailing job/wage. And Trump is not going to deport illegals that are otherwise following the law and a productive part of society. He has simply said…again and again, that ALL illegal immigrants are SUBJECT to the law. The prevailing consensus thus far is that NONE of them are…that ANYONE who can crawl across the border is IN and will never be deported. Trump is making it clear that we ALL are subject to the laws, and while many of us break these laws every day, be it speeding or jaywalking, we are still subject to the law if caught. He knows we will never completely seal the border but people need to understand we have laws and WILL enforce them. Trump has repeatedly said that after he has closed the border and deported criminal aliens, he will deal with those remaining in the most hospitable way. Which I think means that if they have a job, are NOT a burden on the country and otherwise follow the rules, they can stay….just like ANY OTHER alien. Currently we are much harder on legal immigrant than illegal ones. Illegals get free legal help while everyone else must beg.
This all started out, not as a policy to deliberately allow illegals in, but more of simply looking the other way. Today it is policy, sanctuary cities and significant legal efforts to prevent them from being subject to the law…the same law as the rest of us.
We used to see democrats demanding the border be closed, defending big labor unions, but they finally figured out that unions were doomed and blacks simply were not reproducing enough to substantially increase their voting base…but illegals had it all. Reproducing rapidly AND still streaming across the border AND a race/culture historically “oppressed” that could easily be subsumed into their progressive agenda. LaRaza outweighing the NAACP. It used to be enough to simply give them our jobs, but it was discovered that they could do SO MUCH MORE by offering them free stuff, like they had done for Blacks for so many years. It’s one thing to be dependent on a job, and quite another to be dependent upon handouts. There are many jobs, but only ONE government.
LikeLike
And, who really ends up paying the border tax?
LikeLike
Ha!
Who pays ALL the taxes now? Corporate and private income tax. property tax, personal property tax, franchise tax, sales tax, gas tax, gas guzzler tax, cigarette and alcohol tax, Sugary soda tax…and then all the FEES!
Back in the OLD days, late 1800’s early 1900’s our federal government was almost entirely funded with protectionist tariffs and we didn’t tax personal income, sales or property hardly at all. Who paid the taxes then? Well WE did, but by imposition on FOREIGN companies, NOT our own. And guess what, we had a huge positive trade balance. Go figure.
Americans have no idea how much of the cost of everything we consume is taxes as most of it is hidden within the cost of the actual production. This is why the Europeans like VAT as it is layered into the production so it is not easy to figure out how much tax yo are paying. What we do know is a product of what the government WANTS us to know. Sadly, corporations don’t care much about how much taxes they pay, only its relevance to what their competitors pay, as they can simply pass those costs on to us, which is why we see corporations buying tax and regulatory protection from our government…relative advantage over their competitors.
LikeLike
The citizens will ALWAYS pay for the wasteful ways of their elected officials. AS IT SHOULD BE.
LikeLike
The US has a Ricardian comparative advantage in producing global reserve currency units. It’s a seductive trap and whatever, however and whyever Trump tries to get out of it can only be a good thing.
LikeLike
Of course, longshoremen love “free” trade …
…
About half of West Coast union longshoremen make more than $100,000 a year — some much more, according to shipping industry data. More than half of foremen and managers earn more than $200,000 each year. A few bosses make more than $300,000. All get free healthcare.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-dockworker-pay-20150301-story.html
LikeLike
Good for them. Every working American ought to make good money. The longshoremen do because they are unionized and control critical assets that everyone wants. They have bargaining power. Something everyone wants and needs.
LikeLike
Why should every working American make good money? Do we deserve it more than a Chinese or African diamond miner? Unions understood long ago that wages were a function of control. What they couldn’t do was control the actual markets, only wages, which ultimately led to their demise. If we want free trade…no protectionism or tariffs, then we will be afforded whatever we can demand…which ain’t much. If Unions could have controlled the markets we would have expensive crappy goods and services, but we would also have relatively good paying jobs. Instead those union members used their optimal wages to buy cheap foreign goods. Remember the TV cameras going to Ford factory employee parking lots and showing all the Japanese cars there? Government invoked protectionism demonstrates our failure to actually protect ourselves, to think of our future more than short term interests in “good deals”.
Unions actually spent money on TV adds promoting “Buy the Union Label”, and still it did no good. We can talk theory all day but we are screwed because we must either kneel to a form of totalitarianism that FORCES us to do the right thing, our simply self destruct. Self destruction at least teaches some of us something, but totalitarianism teaches nothing but the advantage of brute force.
LikeLike
Well….going to eventually cost jobs….who knows as we won’t have two futures to compare….but we do know the trade deficit ends up as property of foreign governments, China and Saudi holding the reserves…one through expropiation of earnings from its businesses, the other from owning the business… and that those are funnelled back into US big gov., military, realty and banking…. taking part in the current bubble, encouraging it, obliging lower rates or bankruptcy eventually …. the strong dollar is only relative and nothing to boast at given it relies on other countries undercutting the US in currency/statism after having entered trade frameworks that do not satisfy national stability but by that route….. and the US expects to service that debt with what kind of hegemony in the future, with what kind of return for participation… after it has sold out its own system to dedicated consumption from abroad… there are limits to the incidence owning dollar debt provides no matter the planned rewards that are insinuated in private public protocol accepted abroad…. and it is the US citizen who pays the digression, simply because his base has been both emptied and inflated leaving him at the mercy of political whim, of financial dealings, instead of relied upon as economic foundation of his nation.
We talk of robotization and loss of jobs, of the benefit of trade as a means to an end, but that is not the world NOW, and to trade into increasing debt is not trade but a steady devaluation of own worth that is only sustained while there is anything left of use available to the creditor.
LikeLike
See you on the Other Side … in a bodybag
LikeLike
“It brings to mind the 1992 article written by George McGovern, one of the most progressive politicians of the 20th century, on his experience owning a small business after leaving the Senate and dealing with regulation: “A Politician’s Dream is a Businessman’s Nightmare”. You would think that there would be a substantial amount of effort by government agencies to try and understand the costs and benefits of regulation, given its impact on the economy, which as the chart bottom right shows that while regulatory costs amount to $20,000 for all US firms on average, they crush small business by about $30,000 per worker, making new business creation, and employee retention, virtually impossible.”
Our Government, Destroyer of Jobs
August 12, 2015
Experienced “correspondent/entrepreneur Ray Z. was kind enough to share his experience of trying to open a bagel shop and create six jobs” (he gave up):
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogaug15/destroy-jobs8-15.html
LikeLike
Trump is using BOTH reward and punishment to help grow the country. Dropping the corporate tax rate from 35% down to 15% should encourage foreign companies to locate in the US. The border tax punishes foreign companies that do not establish factories in the US. And when factories have to be built, companies will contribute toward infrastructure improvements.
LikeLike
In the long term it won’t matter, since the economic reset in 3-4 yrs will make the consequence unknowable. Also, if Trump can make the business climate in the US competitive, a border adjustment becomes a mute point…except for those breaking immigration laws.
LikeLike
IBM Today, Big Blue gets rid of people quietly and in smaller batches, former and current employees say. The firings have become so commonplace, they say, that many workers are resigned to losing their jobs and simply wait for their names to be called. Then, many are asked to train potential replacements overseas (Bloomberg)
And this is the adjusted version for Mr. President:
In an opinion piece in the USA Today on December 13, IBM CEO Ginni Rometty announced the big hiring plans. “New collar” jobs, she called them:
At IBM alone, we have thousands of open positions at any given moment, and we intend to hire about 25,000 professionals in the next four years in the United States, 6,000 of those in 2017. IBM will also invest $1 billion in training and development of our U.S. employees in the next four years.
She said “hire,” not “create jobs.” IBM hires people all the time as part of the normal turnover. She didn’t promise to increase IBM’s workforce in the US by 25,000. Surely, IBM’s lawyers parsed her draft with a fine-toothed comb before it was published.
LikeLike
I’m in the IT business and while you occasionally here about entire IT departments being replaced with H1-B employees, what is way more common is losing your job to outsourcing. The Indian and Chinese engineers will get the jobs if they are cheaper and just as good, it’s just a matter of whether they will work and pay taxes here (H1-B) or there (outsourcing).
LikeLike
Trump understands game theory, Mish does not.
Free trade is a great idea in concept, and it benefits all players when everyone plays by the same rules. But when the US plays “fair” (by the terms of whatever lengthy paper agreement) and the other countries do not, or worse a loser like obozo signs what amounts to a reparations deal — that is not free trade at all.
TPP is a bunch of globalist corporations essentially usurping national sovereignty. George Soros’ fantasy new world order. No one needs a 3000 page document for free trade.
Trump also understands that “selective enforcement” as Mish labels it is a requirement for any group trade deal. Those that play by the rules get preferential trade treatment. Those who merely put a worthless politician signature on a paper but don’t allow US goods into their country, get “selective enforcement”.
Being submissive and getting constantly pushed over and walked on is not free trade. Its reverse mercantilism, where lame politicians put the US at a disadvantage in some warped lib-tard guilt trip. F#ck obozo and all other lib-tards who hate America.
If other countries want to engage in free trade with the US (equal terms BOTH directions), great. The more the merrier.
LikeLike
I hope most of this is negotiating posturing, because otherwise it will be an Obamacare-style mess applied to trade. Beyond the platitudes and rhetoric, I cannot see how you could craft a law and regulations to penalize companies for moving production without crazy and unintended consequences.
Companies would have to be very careful about what products they decide to produce in the USA, lest they be penalized if circumstances dictate moving in the future. What if a company sets up production and then finds that its necessary raw materials are slapped with 35% tariffs that make them no longer competitive. Am thinking of all the confection factories that had to relocate outside the USA because of the sugar tariffs and corn ethanol policies (raising corn syrup prices), not labor costs.
I suspect this is the same “bully pulpit” Herbert Hoover used in his failed attempt to stimulate the economy in 1930: Namely bullying all the corporate leaders into raising wages (most famously Ford) so that workers would have more money to spend. Only problem for Hoover/FDR was that this meant a shrinking job force (high unemployment). Law of unintended consequences. I suspect Trump will be “lucky.”
LikeLike
Ford raised his minimum wage on January 5th, 1914
https://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/jan-5-1914-henry-ford-implements-5-a-day-wage/comment-page-1/
Herbert Hoover was president 15+ years later, from 1929 to 1932
LikeLike
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/pandering-to-labor-caused-great-91447
Pro-labor policies pushed by President Herbert Hoover after the stock market crash of 1929 accounted for close to two-thirds of the drop in the nation’s gross domestic product over the two years that followed, causing what might otherwise have been a bad recession to slip into the Great Depression, a UCLA economist…peer-reviewed Journal of Economic Theory… on the website of the National Bureau of Economic Research (www.nber.org) as a working paper…
After the crash, Hoover met with major leaders of industry and cut a deal with them to either maintain or raise wages and institute job-sharing to keep workers employed…In response, General Motors, Ford, U.S. Steel, Dupont, International Harvester and many other large firms fell in line…an unintended effect: As deflation eventually did set in, the inflation-adjusted value of these wages rose over time, effectively giving workers a raise precisely at the time when companies were least in a position to afford such increases and precisely when productivity was beginning to fall. “The wage freeze effectively raised the cost of labor and, by extension, production,” Ohanian said. “If you artificially raise the price of production, your costs go way up and you pass them on to the customers, and they buy that much less.” Reluctant to lower wages due to Hoover’s entreaties, employers in the manufacturing sector responded by reducing the work week and laying off workers…during the dreaded period of deflation a decade earlier, some manufacturing wages fell 30 percent. GDP, meanwhile, only dropped by 4 percent. …research in 2004 indicating that Roosevelt’s response also had an unintentionally deleterious effect. By their calculations, fallout from Roosevelt’s National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) dragged out the Depression for seven years longer than a more market-based response would have…
[Well worth reading the whole release, if not the paper]
LikeLike
“I cannot see how you could craft a law and regulations to penalize companies for moving production without crazy and unintended consequences. ”
It helps one to understand when considering the reverse of that thought: I cannot see how you could craft a law and regulations to reward companies for moving production without crazy unintended consequences.
Crazy unintended consequences are what you get from central planning. If you don’t like them, then stop stumping for central planning. You are probably right that replacing Obama’s central planning with Trump’s central planning just replaces one set of unintended consequences with another. But it is that very idiocy that entertains people to the point that they can’t envision life without central planning.
At the very least one should be happy that Trump’s central planning lite has slightly fewer unintended consequences than Obama’s central planning on steroids. But as Mises said, there really is no third way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Nothing to see here, move along.”
These have been part of Trump’s message since he started to run. Thus, he has started to deliver on his promise.
There is “free trade” and there is “fair trade”. Trump is no angel, but here he is right and Mish is wrong.
The TPP is a pact that protects certain corporate interests and not “fair trade”.
What most promote as “free trade” has NEVER EXISTED! Corporations were created as monopolies guaranteed by the king!
If you do not know history, you are doomed to repeat it.
LikeLike
I am not a fan of TPP – TPP was as Fedwatcher says, a corporate handout for protected interests.
We differ on fair trade
LikeLike
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Congress have to pass a law to raise taxes or tariffs?
Is Ryan going to go along with breaking his “no taxes ever” pledge? Ok, he calls it an adjustment, will Grover Norquist agree with that little nomenclature change?
Will the Senate go along, or will the Democrats kill it just because it’s something Trump wants (revenge on Mitch for 6 years of blocking Obama)?
Hasn’t been a week and it’s already getting good. Better buy more popcorn.
LikeLike
Ford Motor Co – the company that struggled through 2008 instead of swooning its helpless carcass into the arms of government rescue. If Ford’s on board I’ll give it a fair hearing.
When I see manly, independent General Motors pickup truck adds I laugh.
LikeLike
Collapse was coming anyway in 2017 or 2018 … may as well go out appearing to do something for the folks.
LikeLike