First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Fiat Chrysler announces $1B investment in Michigan and Ohio plants
14725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17

MadBovine wrote:


kevz_210 wrote:

With decreased corporate taxes the United States can have a much more competitive manufacturing sector again. These companies get this and Trump will get the job done.


Trump had nothing to do with this. As is stated in the post and article, this was announced a year ago, and I can confirm I already knew about it long before the election as well. I'm a FCA certified mechanic working at a dealership, the Grand Wagoneer and "Jeep Truck" are new models so I had to take online training classes for specific model highlights/design changes prior to launch. They tell you in the courses where the vehicles are going to be made as well, so yeah, no new information here and anyone chalking it up to mr magical girl Trump, is just fooling themselves.

By the way, I'm starting a new movement, in light of his flat out refusal to admit Russia did any hacking in spite of overwhelming evidence, I say everyone should now refer to Trump on twitter as #PutinsPuppet


I don't agree with presidents getting credit (good or bad) for the policy of previous administrations. For example all of the government privacy violations that surfaced during Obama's presidency... those were abusing Bush era policies.

On the hacking... c'mon... They did influence using information attained from hacking (that is of course if you assume that we were somehow reliably able to trace it back to them, doubtful). They also used heavy propaganda... par for the course.


“They did not change any vote tallies or anything of that sort,” Clapper said of the Russians.
qwueri 
21133 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17
Good on Ford. Kind of dumb we're at the point of trying to attribute success to a president whose not in office yet, has yet to enact any policies, and whose power lies extensively in causing a company's stocks to dip with a tweet. Doubly dumb when the cited article specifically denies Trump had anything to do with the decision.

Are we really at the point of micro-managing every company's business decisions as some kind of political statement? What kind of free market is that?
5175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / The Cat Empire
Offline
Posted 1/9/17

Xxanthar wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


What's good for America is usually bad for liberals.


What makes you think that lol
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17

qwueri wrote:
Are we really at the point of micro-managing every company's business decisions as some kind of political statement? What kind of free market is that?


The "Free Market" isn't as free and open as it used to be, qwueri. The moment that lobbyists took over Congress and began to lobby for their company's bottom line (profit) was the moment that the Free Market began to fall into the realm of crony capitalism.

I know that Trump has stated that he's initiating a five-year-long ban on lobbying; however, that'll only create "shadow lobbying". Basically, lobbying behind the scenes without any rules or restrictions. This already happens but banning it in an 'official' form will only allow for those with political backing (like the Clintons, for you conservative types) to influence Congress through "backdoor/shadow lobbying".

Going back to the "Free Market" and all ... it was a nice idea, but capitalism underestimated how many people will join together to ensure that they all stay within the top margin of profits. When the government got involved in allowing lobbyists to influence their decisions on policies that would impact a company's profits the underlying principle of the "free market" was abolished.

Edit/On-Topic:

I feel it's nice that there's going to be a few more jobs in that particular area; just that it's a bit redundant to give congratulations to Trump over something he had nothing to do with.
qwueri 
21133 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17

ninjitsuko wrote:

The "Free Market" isn't as free and open as it used to be, qwueri. The moment that lobbyists took over Congress and began to lobby for their company's bottom line (profit) was the moment that the Free Market began to fall into the realm of crony capitalism.

I know that Trump has stated that he's initiating a five-year-long ban on lobbying; however, that'll only create "shadow lobbying". Basically, lobbying behind the scenes without any rules or restrictions. This already happens but banning it in an 'official' form will only allow for those with political backing (like the Clintons, for you conservative types) to influence Congress through "backdoor/shadow lobbying".

Going back to the "Free Market" and all ... it was a nice idea, but capitalism underestimated how many people will join together to ensure that they all stay within the top margin of profits. When the government got involved in allowing lobbyists to influence their decisions on policies that would impact a company's profits the underlying principle of the "free market" was abolished.

Edit/On-Topic:

I feel it's nice that there's going to be a few more jobs in that particular area; just that it's a bit redundant to give congratulations to Trump over something he had nothing to do with.


I don't quite buy that lobbyists have taken over Congress. The flow of money from lobbying interests may dilute the voice of voters with that of corporate interests, but that does not join business decisions at the hip of congressional action. The free market is alive and well even with lobbyists running around, it's just not nor has it ever been a laissez faire market.

For the time being at least, business are still mostly competing with each other with the market determining which prices sell. If Trump ramps up his micromanaging when and where businesses set up with actual policy, that's a huge shift in how the US does business. From state level responsibility to attract jobs to a nation wide dictation. It's a huge expansion of government involvement in businesses, including national location of plants in the perceived 'pubic good.' And that's going to ramp up lobbying efforts, above and/or under the table.
Posted 1/9/17

qwueri wrote:

I don't quite buy that lobbyists have taken over Congress. The flow of money from lobbying interests may dilute the voice of voters with that of corporate interests, but that does not join business decisions at the hip of congressional action. The free market is alive and well even with lobbyists running around, it's just not nor has it ever been a laissez faire market.

For the time being at least, business are still mostly competing with each other with the market determining which prices sell. If Trump ramps up his micromanaging when and where businesses set up with actual policy, that's a huge shift in how the US does business. From state level responsibility to attract jobs to a nation wide dictation. It's a huge expansion of government involvement in businesses, including national location of plants in the perceived 'pubic good.' And that's going to ramp up lobbying efforts, above and/or under the table.


I don't think that it's joined business decisions to the hip of congressional action; just that there's going to be a continued streak where the vox populi will believe that because of Trump or the Republican Congress that businesses are supplying new jobs to the market. Lobbyists have all-but taken over Congress when it comes to a legislature that would impact the profits of larger companies that hire them. You're right that it hasn't ever been a laissez-faire market; it'll always be influenced by the government and vice versa (in some fashion or another). But I do happen to believe that crony capitalism has taken over most of Congress in recent years; as more and more policies are written to help businesses skirt around the laws (by extending their reach just enough to overlook any faults that a business may have on the consumers).

I agree with you on the topic of Trump seemingly wanting to encourage the government to jump into businesses on a more aggressive level. They're so fixated on "proving" that their system will work that they're going to overreach and allow for the government to get involved in the operations of businesses. If Trump/Republican Congress focuses on this while banning lobbying, I assure you there's going to be a significant amount of "under the table/backdoor" lobbying going on behind the scenes. This is pretty much what the handful of friends that are involved with lobbying have suggested to me - as well as several articles outlining concerns that echo the same line of thought. If you ban something that's been legal for so long you 're going to find that it'll still happen, except it'll be behind closed doors instead of the public view.
qwueri 
21133 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 1/9/17

ninjitsuko wrote:

I don't think that it's joined business decisions to the hip of congressional action; just that there's going to be a continued streak where the vox populi will believe that because of Trump or the Republican Congress that businesses are supplying new jobs to the market. Lobbyists have all-but taken over Congress when it comes to a legislature that would impact the profits of larger companies that hire them. You're right that it hasn't ever been a laissez-faire market; it'll always be influenced by the government and vice versa (in some fashion or another). But I do happen to believe that crony capitalism has taken over most of Congress in recent years; as more and more policies are written to help businesses skirt around the laws (by extending their reach just enough to overlook any faults that a business may have on the consumers).

I agree with you on the topic of Trump seemingly wanting to encourage the government to jump into businesses on a more aggressive level. They're so fixated on "proving" that their system will work that they're going to overreach and allow for the government to get involved in the operations of businesses. If Trump/Republican Congress focuses on this while banning lobbying, I assure you there's going to be a significant amount of "under the table/backdoor" lobbying going on behind the scenes. This is pretty much what the handful of friends that are involved with lobbying have suggested to me - as well as several articles outlining concerns that echo the same line of thought. If you ban something that's been legal for so long you 're going to find that it'll still happen, except it'll be behind closed doors instead of the public view.


The Citizen's United case in 2010 did open up the flood gate of corporate money into Congress. However pork barrel spending, corporate exceptions, and other laws that extensively benefit specific businesses (like copyrights on medicines) aren't new. Local and state level politics and business in particular tend to lean on specific plants and industries. It's yet to undermine the US's version of the free market, mostly because there's enough corporate interests playing off each other to balance out excesses.

My big worry is that if Trump continues to push the way he has been so far, his policies stand to isolate US businesses from branching out globally and chill international investment in the US. It's just kind of bizarre to watch the GOP transition from a party largely friendly to business interests to one that's heavily invested in regulating where a business does their work.
14725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 1/9/17

qwueri wrote:


ninjitsuko wrote:

The "Free Market" isn't as free and open as it used to be, qwueri. The moment that lobbyists took over Congress and began to lobby for their company's bottom line (profit) was the moment that the Free Market began to fall into the realm of crony capitalism.

I know that Trump has stated that he's initiating a five-year-long ban on lobbying; however, that'll only create "shadow lobbying". Basically, lobbying behind the scenes without any rules or restrictions. This already happens but banning it in an 'official' form will only allow for those with political backing (like the Clintons, for you conservative types) to influence Congress through "backdoor/shadow lobbying".

Going back to the "Free Market" and all ... it was a nice idea, but capitalism underestimated how many people will join together to ensure that they all stay within the top margin of profits. When the government got involved in allowing lobbyists to influence their decisions on policies that would impact a company's profits the underlying principle of the "free market" was abolished.

Edit/On-Topic:

I feel it's nice that there's going to be a few more jobs in that particular area; just that it's a bit redundant to give congratulations to Trump over something he had nothing to do with.


I don't quite buy that lobbyists have taken over Congress. The flow of money from lobbying interests may dilute the voice of voters with that of corporate interests, but that does not join business decisions at the hip of congressional action. The free market is alive and well even with lobbyists running around, it's just not nor has it ever been a laissez faire market.

For the time being at least, business are still mostly competing with each other with the market determining which prices sell. If Trump ramps up his micromanaging when and where businesses set up with actual policy, that's a huge shift in how the US does business. From state level responsibility to attract jobs to a nation wide dictation. It's a huge expansion of government involvement in businesses, including national location of plants in the perceived 'pubic good.' And that's going to ramp up lobbying efforts, above and/or under the table.


ISPs... that market is so badly crippled by regulatory capture even Google is giving up. Anti-competitive laws and collusion are so abundant with many pockets of the market trapped in a monopoly.
qwueri 
21133 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 1/9/17

GreatLordBalzak wrote:

ISPs... that market is so badly crippled by regulatory capture even Google is giving up. Anti-competitive laws and collusion are so abundant with many pockets of the market trapped in a monopoly.


There are definitely sections of the market, like local utilities, that may or may not have competition. If Trump's cabinet picks are any indication, his pick for FCC chairman will probably be more ISP friendly than his successor.

Sectors like the automotive manufacturers has been a relatively open market. The PotUS taking direct intervention in that market of all markets doesn't speak well for free markets.
mxdan 
11250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 1/9/17

Xxanthar wrote:

What's good for America is usually bad for liberals.


Ignoring the obvious historical evidence that proves this isn't true in the slightest let me take a moment to say that this is actually whats bad for America.

Not what you just described.

Your train of thought.

You are actually what is bad for America.

It's this idea that the only good policy comes from one of uniform ideas of thought. It's the idea that no good comes from people who don't think like you. And it's probably the most un-American thing you can subscribe to.

Posted 1/9/17

mxdan wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:

What's good for America is usually bad for liberals.


Ignoring the obvious historical evidence that proves this isn't true in the slightest let me take a moment to say that this is actually whats bad for America.

Not what you just described.

Your train of thought.

You are actually what is bad for America.

It's this idea that the only good policy comes from one of uniform ideas of thought. It's the idea that no good comes from people who don't think like you. And it's probably the most un-American thing you can subscribe to.



Actually the past 8 years have proved my point rather well.
mxdan 
11250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 1/9/17

Xxanthar wrote:


mxdan wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:

What's good for America is usually bad for liberals.


Ignoring the obvious historical evidence that proves this isn't true in the slightest let me take a moment to say that this is actually whats bad for America.

Not what you just described.

Your train of thought.

You are actually what is bad for America.

It's this idea that the only good policy comes from one of uniform ideas of thought. It's the idea that no good comes from people who don't think like you. And it's probably the most un-American thing you can subscribe to.



Actually the past 8 years have proved my point rather well.


And the 8 years prior to that disproved your point rather well.

See where I'm going with this?
10297 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Abyss
Offline
Posted 1/9/17

ninjitsuko wrote:

It's pretty clear that Trump wasn't responsible for this whatsoever. Even if we rule out the null-value of this situation (as MadBovine had pointed out), I feel that people are still quick to assume that blue collar jobs are the ones that America needs the most. Let's say that Trump convinces other companies with blue collar positions (construction/manufacturing) to stay in the United States (or to US citizens). If you're lucky, you might be able to hire 1-2 college educated engineers while the rest would be for hands-on positions. There's still a smorgasbord of college-educated individuals that are working in fast food/blue collar positions that are overqualified and making under their proposed wages.

In other words, this isn't the 1950s. Eisenhower brought about the Interstate Highway System after WWII, automobile companies were flourishing as the auto industry was prime in manufacturing mode .. blue collar positions were the ones most sought after. That's no longer the case in most of America. The manufacturing industries are positioned in areas that have, historically speaking, been blue collar communities since the 50's - this has always (and will always) be true in America.

I'm hoping that, if Trump does what he claims he can do, we'll see more jobs outside of the blue collar industries as well. My biggest concern is that Trump supporters are ridiculously quick to assume that his assumed policies have had something to do with these decisions and giving him credit when he's done absolutely nothing yet. I'd hold off until his re-election to determine if he's actually done anything positive for America yet. Otherwise, you're just falling into the media hype that conservatives have taken pride in dethroning over this last election.


Trump has already talked about freezing government hiring, which is a LOT of white collar jobs (just look on USAjobs.gov) There are thousands of white collar jobs there at any given time.

I think he was more grunts and less educated people. Just what I have seen so far though.
Posted 1/9/17 , edited 1/9/17

mxdan wrote:


And the 8 years prior to that disproved your point rather well.

See where I'm going with this?


Not at all the, bush years were not bad until the last couple after the housing market collapsed, mainly because democrats forced banks to make risky loans so there could be more first time home buyers.

Everything the democrats touch turns into garbage, much like Obamacare.

See where I'm going with this?
1541 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 1/9/17

Rujikin wrote:


runec wrote:

Sooooo.....whats the point of this thread? You just straight copy pasted a news article. You didn't offer any opinion or insight on it.


And if I offered an opinion or insight on it you would be complaining about that...

The point of this thread is to inform people that things are slowly improving in the USA thanks to Trump actually doing his job. Don't you agree it's nice to see large investments in the USA again with jobs being created instead of lost?

But Trump had nothing to do with this. Your own post said the decision was made a year ago. Wanna guess who was PotUS at the time?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.