We are not going to let them take our businesses any longer. It's not going to happen.

[rdean]

Watching a Trump speech today, Trump said, "We are not going to let them take our businesses any longer. It's not going to happen".

What does that mean?

It means you've spammed the board with another butthurt thread.

With over a hundred and thirty posts.

That can only mean one thing.

Fuck off bitch.

 

[Moonglow]

Don't forget the other part of the equation, because Mexico has to accept it as well. If they don't like it, they won't sign it.

And there is nothing Trump can do to force them.

Therein lies the "art of the deal" - you position Mexico, and Canada, so that they can't afford NOT to accept the deal. Suppose, for example, Trump were to say "Either sign it or we will completely close the border to all Mexican (or Canadian) goods. In addition, we will no longer provide military support for your country's security."

I'm guessing that would work.

Completely close the border to trade with Canada and Mexico? Are you nuts? That would screw up our economy even worse than what it is right now. Besides..............Republicans want to have the Keystone pipeline, so shutting off trade with Canada is a non starter.

As far as military support? Mexico and Canada don't start wars very often. Usually it's the USA asking them to send troops in support of US.

Ignorance, when worn with hubris, is such an ugly thing.

The US, thru NORAD, picks up just about 88% of all military costs for defending Canada, the US, and Mexico (you didn't even know that Mexico was included, did you?)

Let's allow both countries to pay for their own defense - the resulting cost of military increase would bankrupt both.

Further, let's move all those US businesses currently in Canada and Mexico back to the US - simply done, btw -- and see how well their economies hold up. What, again, would be the influence of bringing those businesses back to the US??

You've got to remember - we have the customers, and we have the capital - with that kind of power, you can make corporations dance.

How in the hell do you bring back companies? Come on, tell us big boy....

Sorry --- that was such a stupid question, I didn't think you were serious.

Bring back companies? Hmmm ... let me see.

Company A's primary customer base is in the US. Tariffs, because they are made in Mexico, make the company's products non-competitive. Company A is faced with a choice ---- move its operation to the States or give up its primary customer base.

What to do ! What to do! Call Allied Van Lines - we're going north.

See how simple it is ... if there's a need, somebody is going to fill it. It can be the company you relocated from Mexico, or it can be a new company. But, one way or the other, the need will be filled.

Again, read the NAFTA treaty....tariffs can't just be loaded to deter imports or litigation and penalties will ensure according to article of the contract....Same with Mexico putting tariffs on US goods entering their country..That is what free trade means....Trump would need an act of Congress to stop and act of Congress...

 

[toomuchtime_]

No, that's not how it works ---- you've just demonstrated the fundamental ignorance of the issues at hand.

What happened to deregulation on businesses so they can be free to operate without the stranglehold, create more profits, which in turn creates more jobs... Isn't that how it is supposed to work?

Cutting costs creates jobs. Redirection of corporate capital means more jobs.

Saving somebody money on their car does NOT create jobs. The buyer has a finite amount of money, and can only spend as much as he has. In the larger scheme of things, he can only buy as much "labor" as his funds.

I guess sarcasm doesn't play well via text... The irony I was alluding to was the conservative fiscal view of less taxes and less regulation to stimulate the economy and the apparent paradox that comes with the free trade situation... Lower prices save money for consumers and raise profits for businesses, in theory this should stimulate the economy and grow GDP... Same thing with deregulation, less expenses right?. Funny how the conservative proposal to the free trade delema is to impose contraints on businesses so they can't afford to leave and the end result is higher prices for the consumer.

I'm not disagreeing with the idea I just point out the irony. It is a very difficult issue.

You're missing the main point. It's true that free trade and minimal regulation produces a robust economy, but which economy are we talking about, the global economy or our national economy? Since at least the 1990's many people assumed wrongly they were the same thing. When the Clintons pushed NAFTA and the WTO, there was strong support from Republicans for whom free trade was a mantra, but much opposition from Democrats who feared correctly it would hurt Americans workers.

Trump says these treaties were a mistake he will correct and he will have the support of all those disillusioned Republicans who supported them in the 1990's along with all those Democrats who mourn the loss of US jobs they created. Trump will still support minimal regulation within our national economy and in trade with other developed countries.

I get it and you articulate the situation very well. I agree with your points, free trade is a good thing in concept but got exploited by big business and we are now in a very tough imbalanced situation. I think trump has tapped into the anger and has done a good job at spotlighting the problems. I don't think his proposed solutions are going to be as simple as he makes them out to be. I wish our political discussions would analyze and scutinize the details. Maybe if we took a break from all the finger pointing, name calling and mud slinging, we could get there...

All of this, trade, immigration, the fight against Islamic terrorism, international commitments such as NATO are all part of a larger discussion about globalism and nationalism. Since WWII in America notions of nationalism gradually were pushed aside as impediments to America's new role as the leader of the free world, first in terms of the Cold War and after 1989 in terms of trade, new alliances and new commitments to huge international treaty organizations and we sometimes became so intoxicated with our role as leader of the free world that we forgot to take care of business at home.

At this point, our trade imbalance is so bad that we are literally selling off our assets, real estate, corporations, even technology, to support our standard of living, and at some point, we will not have enough left to sell off to support our standard of living and America will go into decline. This process did not start with NAFTA, but NAFTA has exacerbated the problem, and renegotiating it or withdrawing from it has to be a first step to correcting the problem.

In terms of security, the US pays a disproportionate share of the cost of maintaining NATO but globalists like Obama and Clinton grumble about it but consider it just part of the cost of being the leader of the free world. In terms of internal security, Clinton and Obama insist we should accept ME refugees despite warnings from the director of the FBI and the director of national intelligence that for most of these people there simply is not enough data to vet them as safe with confidence, thus putting America's prestige as world leader ahead of the security of our citizens. Obama and Clinton would also commit America to paying a disproportionate share of the cost of fighting climate change without regard for the damage this would do to our economy or the burden it would put on Americans taxpayers.

Because of Trump, we are now engaged in a great national debate about whether our role as global leader is more or less important than the prosperity and security of our people. Clinton and Obama say, yes, it is and Trump says, no, the the interests of the American people must come first and only after we have assured those interests can we concern ourselves with the interests of others, and then, only to the extent we can afford it.

 

[Slade3200]

What happened to deregulation on businesses so they can be free to operate without the stranglehold, create more profits, which in turn creates more jobs... Isn't that how it is supposed to work?

Cutting costs creates jobs. Redirection of corporate capital means more jobs.

Saving somebody money on their car does NOT create jobs. The buyer has a finite amount of money, and can only spend as much as he has. In the larger scheme of things, he can only buy as much "labor" as his funds.

I guess sarcasm doesn't play well via text... The irony I was alluding to was the conservative fiscal view of less taxes and less regulation to stimulate the economy and the apparent paradox that comes with the free trade situation... Lower prices save money for consumers and raise profits for businesses, in theory this should stimulate the economy and grow GDP... Same thing with deregulation, less expenses right?. Funny how the conservative proposal to the free trade delema is to impose contraints on businesses so they can't afford to leave and the end result is higher prices for the consumer.

I'm not disagreeing with the idea I just point out the irony. It is a very difficult issue.

You're missing the main point. It's true that free trade and minimal regulation produces a robust economy, but which economy are we talking about, the global economy or our national economy? Since at least the 1990's many people assumed wrongly they were the same thing. When the Clintons pushed NAFTA and the WTO, there was strong support from Republicans for whom free trade was a mantra, but much opposition from Democrats who feared correctly it would hurt Americans workers.

Trump says these treaties were a mistake he will correct and he will have the support of all those disillusioned Republicans who supported them in the 1990's along with all those Democrats who mourn the loss of US jobs they created. Trump will still support minimal regulation within our national economy and in trade with other developed countries.

I get it and you articulate the situation very well. I agree with your points, free trade is a good thing in concept but got exploited by big business and we are now in a very tough imbalanced situation. I think trump has tapped into the anger and has done a good job at spotlighting the problems. I don't think his proposed solutions are going to be as simple as he makes them out to be. I wish our political discussions would analyze and scutinize the details. Maybe if we took a break from all the finger pointing, name calling and mud slinging, we could get there...

All of this, trade, immigration, the fight against Islamic terrorism, international commitments such as NATO are all part of a larger discussion about globalism and nationalism. Since WWII in America notions of nationalism gradually were pushed aside as impediments to America's new role as the leader of the free world, first in terms of the Cold War and after 1989 in terms of trade, new alliances and new commitments to huge international treaty organizations and we sometimes became so intoxicated with our role as leader of the free world that we forgot to take care of business at home.

At this point, our trade imbalance is so bad that we are literally selling off our assets, real estate, corporations, even technology, to support our standard of living, and at some point, we will not have enough left to sell off to support our standard of living and America will go into decline. This process did not start with NAFTA, but NAFTA has exacerbated the problem, and renegotiating it or withdrawing from it has to be a first step to correcting the problem.

In terms of security, the US pays a disproportionate share of the cost of maintaining NATO but globalists like Obama and Clinton grumble about it but consider it just part of the cost of being the leader of the free world. In terms of internal security, Clinton and Obama insist we should accept ME refugees despite warnings from the director of the FBI and the director of national intelligence that for most of these people there simply is not enough data to vet them as safe with confidence, thus putting America's prestige as world leader ahead of the security of our citizens. Obama and Clinton would also commit America to paying a disproportionate share of the cost of fighting climate change without regard for the damage this would do to our economy or the burden it would put on Americans taxpayers.

Because of Trump, we are now engaged in a great national debate about whether our role as global leader is more or less important than the prosperity and security of our people. Clinton and Obama say, yes, it is and Trump says, no, the the interests of the American people must come first and only after we have assured those interests can we concern ourselves with the interests of others, and then, only to the extent we can afford it.

Well said, you articulate your point of view very well but there are also very valid arguements from the other side. I do commend Trump for the cut through the BS style that he engaged us in this very important debate, I just wish there was more follow through. He does a very good job at identifying problems and placing blame on Obama and Hillary, but he takes the conversation into the gutter and can't seem to get out of it. Hillary is a policy wonk, and I think she likes to get down to business but she is now in the gutter with trump and instead of engaging in ideas and policy it is an agrumemt about who you can't trust and who is unfit to be president.

 

[oreo]

Watching a Trump speech today, Trump said, "We are not going to let them take our businesses any longer. It's not going to happen".

What does that mean?

That comment is designed to hit the shock & awe button in his supporters brains. Obviously the Federal Government has no authority over private sector business to keep jobs or their business in this country if they don't want to.
A neuroscientist explains what may be wrong with Trump supporters’ brains

 

[Spare_change]

Therein lies the "art of the deal" - you position Mexico, and Canada, so that they can't afford NOT to accept the deal. Suppose, for example, Trump were to say "Either sign it or we will completely close the border to all Mexican (or Canadian) goods. In addition, we will no longer provide military support for your country's security."

I'm guessing that would work.

Completely close the border to trade with Canada and Mexico? Are you nuts? That would screw up our economy even worse than what it is right now. Besides..............Republicans want to have the Keystone pipeline, so shutting off trade with Canada is a non starter.

As far as military support? Mexico and Canada don't start wars very often. Usually it's the USA asking them to send troops in support of US.

Ignorance, when worn with hubris, is such an ugly thing.

The US, thru NORAD, picks up just about 88% of all military costs for defending Canada, the US, and Mexico (you didn't even know that Mexico was included, did you?)

Let's allow both countries to pay for their own defense - the resulting cost of military increase would bankrupt both.

Further, let's move all those US businesses currently in Canada and Mexico back to the US - simply done, btw -- and see how well their economies hold up. What, again, would be the influence of bringing those businesses back to the US??

You've got to remember - we have the customers, and we have the capital - with that kind of power, you can make corporations dance.

How in the hell do you bring back companies? Come on, tell us big boy....

Sorry --- that was such a stupid question, I didn't think you were serious.

Bring back companies? Hmmm ... let me see.

Company A's primary customer base is in the US. Tariffs, because they are made in Mexico, make the company's products non-competitive. Company A is faced with a choice ---- move its operation to the States or give up its primary customer base.

What to do ! What to do! Call Allied Van Lines - we're going north.

See how simple it is ... if there's a need, somebody is going to fill it. It can be the company you relocated from Mexico, or it can be a new company. But, one way or the other, the need will be filled.

Then entire Trump argument is to bring back jobs. Bringing back an automated company is good. Not saying it isn't. But if it doesn't increase the job count, then how does it help the GOP base?

Bringing income producers, even if they are machines, increase the money flow in the US, thus creating jobs. While robots don't need bread, the people who own them invest their money, and that creates jobs for those who do.

 

[Spare_change]

Nobody is "Taking" our businesses. Our businesses are leaving on their own to lower expenses. Cheap labor and Lower taxes being the main factors. It is a big mess that I don't see a clear path to recover from yet.

Then, logic would say that if you want to keep the businesses - keep the jobs - you need to be more competitive on the labor and tax fronts.

Why do people try to make this rocket surgery?

Or, the "analysts" have to stop putting insane goals on ever growing profits. Once upon a time, companies employed people and paid a fair wage. They made money for the CEO and the shareholders. The employees had enough income to actually buy the stuff they made. long term plans were made. Now it's all about the shareholder and the quaterly results. I've been in places where they actually stopped entering orders near the end of a quarter if they made the 'numbers". Because going over them does not reward much, but if they fell short next quarter, the share price would suffer. The entire stock market is screwed up. More so when you factor in that stocks being traded, outside of IPOs, bring nothing to the company.

The average profit margin for a company in the US for the past 10 years has been 6.75% Why Are Corporate Profit Margins So High? | Pragmatic Capitalism or The public thinks the average company makes a 36% profit margin, which is about 5X too high - AEI. Some industries, typically those that are government subsidized (energy, etc.) show a larger profit, but not nearly what most seem to believe.

All this talk about massive profits is simply liberal talking points --- they typically use gross profit (especially when they talk about drug companies) and don't consider net profit. In fact, if the profit gets too high, the stocks "mean revert", thus driving the profitability back toward 6.5%. (There's a discussion in the first reference)

In short, most people don't know what the hell they're talking about --- instead, they simply spout what they are told by their respective political propagandists.

Make up some situation, then says that's what liberals believe. Then make up some "solution". Then say "I won because Democrats are stupid". Works every time.

The poster I responded to was bitching about ALL the profits being generated, and how they were being gobbled up by greedy investors.

I merely pointed out the truth to him --- our economy is based on a 7% profit -- period. I also showed him where this is not only theoretically true, but in fact, is historically true, as well.

I'm sorry the post was above your knowledge level - but I refuse to debase myself so that it can be dumbed down for you to understand.

 

[KissMy]

Watching a Trump speech today, Trump said, "We are not going to let them take our businesses any longer. It's not going to happen".

What does that mean?

In his CNBC interview Trump said he would stop other countries from stealing our companies by slashing the value of the US dollar in half like China did. To do that he must Explode the Deficit & print money to create massive inflation Tax on all of US. This will means we will spend our entire paycheck on food , gas & electricity. It will throw anyone making under $100k most of the country into poverty.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Nobody is "Taking" our businesses. Our businesses are leaving on their own to lower expenses. Cheap labor and Lower taxes being the main factors. It is a big mess that I don't see a clear path to recover from yet.

One thing's for sure, Vote-for-my-vag will do nothing to stem it. She supports NAFTA, her creepy husband signed it into law, and she will fuck America over to preserve it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Watching a Trump speech today, Trump said, "We are not going to let them take our businesses any longer. It's not going to happen".

What does that mean?

Probably it means that if Trump doesn't get given $800 million by governments then his business will fail and he'll have to "let them take it", so he's probably demanding rich people be given welfare.

It used to be that Democrats championed steady, good paying manufacturing jobs with great benefits that working people could support a family and buy a home with. Your party has changed.

And not for the better.

 

[owebo]

How in the hell do you bring back companies? Come on, tell us big boy....

By imposing tariffs on items manufactured abroad that make it uneconomical to continue to manufacture them abroad.

If you put a tariff on a nations goods that are imported,, what does that do to the prices of items you send to their nation for sales? How will Trump keep inflation and recession repressed to change all this?

Hasn't the US been artificially repressing inflation?
Sooner or later the shit has to hit the fan when we have to stop printing money.
OR is that a lie and we CAN print money without limit?
Which is true?

Yes, Obama has been shipping our jobs and industry overseas to suppress inflation from his money printing and QE....the piper will be paid....and the pain may destroy America.....democrats are evil pieces of shit.....

Which jobs has Obama shipped over seas and how exactly did he do it?

Coal related jobs for instance....he did it by declaring war on us....

Any other stupid Obama related questions?

 

[owebo]

Nobody is "Taking" our businesses. Our businesses are leaving on their own to lower expenses. Cheap labor and Lower taxes being the main factors. It is a big mess that I don't see a clear path to recover from yet.

Then, logic would say that if you want to keep the businesses - keep the jobs - you need to be more competitive on the labor and tax fronts.

Why do people try to make this rocket surgery?

Or, the "analysts" have to stop putting insane goals on ever growing profits. Once upon a time, companies employed people and paid a fair wage. They made money for the CEO and the shareholders. The employees had enough income to actually buy the stuff they made. long term plans were made. Now it's all about the shareholder and the quaterly results. I've been in places where they actually stopped entering orders near the end of a quarter if they made the 'numbers". Because going over them does not reward much, but if they fell short next quarter, the share price would suffer. The entire stock market is screwed up. More so when you factor in that stocks being traded, outside of IPOs, bring nothing to the company.

The average profit margin for a company in the US for the past 10 years has been 6.75% Why Are Corporate Profit Margins So High? | Pragmatic Capitalism or The public thinks the average company makes a 36% profit margin, which is about 5X too high - AEI. Some industries, typically those that are government subsidized (energy, etc.) show a larger profit, but not nearly what most seem to believe.

All this talk about massive profits is simply liberal talking points --- they typically use gross profit (especially when they talk about drug companies) and don't consider net profit. In fact, if the profit gets too high, the stocks "mean revert", thus driving the profitability back toward 6.5%. (There's a discussion in the first reference)

In short, most people don't know what the hell they're talking about --- instead, they simply spout what they are told by their respective political propagandists.

Make up some situation, then says that's what liberals believe. Then make up some "solution". Then say "I won because Democrats are stupid". Works every time.

Link that democrats aren't stupid?

 

[owebo]

Watching a Trump speech today, Trump said, "We are not going to let them take our businesses any longer. It's not going to happen".

What does that mean?

He is Lying!
Under Clinton China's GDP fell & US GDP rose.
Under Bush China's GDP soared while US GDP fell.
Under Obama China's GDP fell & US GDP rose.

So, you're telling us it is Obama who manipulates the Yuan.....huh.....

 

[frigidweirdo]

Watching a Trump speech today, Trump said, "We are not going to let them take our businesses any longer. It's not going to happen".

What does that mean?

Probably it means that if Trump doesn't get given $800 million by governments then his business will fail and he'll have to "let them take it", so he's probably demanding rich people be given welfare.

It used to be that Democrats championed steady, good paying manufacturing jobs with great benefits that working people could support a family and buy a home with. Your party has changed.

And not for the better.

Not my party I'm afraid, I have never voted and never will vote for Republican or Democrat within the current system.

I'm not one for being a champion of something that's outdated.

 

[Picaro]

Outsourcing.

It also refers to foreign ownership of some very large businesses here that were formerly American owned; try finding a 100% American owned bank within a mile of Wall Street, for instance.

 

[owebo]

Watching a Trump speech today, Trump said, "We are not going to let them take our businesses any longer. It's not going to happen".

What does that mean?

Probably it means that if Trump doesn't get given $800 million by governments then his business will fail and he'll have to "let them take it", so he's probably demanding rich people be given welfare.

It used to be that Democrats championed steady, good paying manufacturing jobs with great benefits that working people could support a family and buy a home with. Your party has changed.

And not for the better.

Not my party I'm afraid, I have never voted and never will vote for Republican or Democrat within the current system.

I'm not one for being a champion of something that's outdated.

What party did you vote for before?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Watching a Trump speech today, Trump said, "We are not going to let them take our businesses any longer. It's not going to happen".

What does that mean?

Probably it means that if Trump doesn't get given $800 million by governments then his business will fail and he'll have to "let them take it", so he's probably demanding rich people be given welfare.

It used to be that Democrats championed steady, good paying manufacturing jobs with great benefits that working people could support a family and buy a home with. Your party has changed.

And not for the better.

Not my party I'm afraid, I have never voted and never will vote for Republican or Democrat within the current system.

I'm not one for being a champion of something that's outdated.

It's not outdated, it was destroyed unnecessarily by NAFTA. There's no good reason for good, steady jobs to be a thing of the past.

 

[Picaro]

Watching a Trump speech today, Trump said, "We are not going to let them take our businesses any longer. It's not going to happen".

What does that mean?

That he wants to keep businesses from outsourcing. A policy you've been advocating and whining about for years. You seriously didn't understand this? He is fighting for an issue you claim to care about and you think what he is saying is unintelligible because he has an R next to his name? How ridiculous!

A policy he uses for his own business .

Of course not because like all business people, he wants to make money, but by placing tariffs on goods made outside the US it becomes possible for US companies to make the same profits by manufacturing goods here as the would by making them in Mexico, for example.

They wouldn't be so fond of outsourcing if it weren't heavily subsidized and had so many tax giveaways making it feasible.

 

[owebo]

Watching a Trump speech today, Trump said, "We are not going to let them take our businesses any longer. It's not going to happen".

What does that mean?

That he wants to keep businesses from outsourcing. A policy you've been advocating and whining about for years. You seriously didn't understand this? He is fighting for an issue you claim to care about and you think what he is saying is unintelligible because he has an R next to his name? How ridiculous!

A policy he uses for his own business .

Of course not because like all business people, he wants to make money, but by placing tariffs on goods made outside the US it becomes possible for US companies to make the same profits by manufacturing goods here as the would by making them in Mexico, for example.

They wouldn't be so fond of outsourcing if it weren't heavily subsidized and had so many tax giveaways making it feasible.

The Employment Prevention Agency is by far the most fascist democrat entity destroying our industrial base....

I agree, Americans need to make things. But when people make things they get a paycheck. When they get a paycheck they see democrats robbing them and vote republican. Democrats simply can't have that on their plantation....

 

[Picaro]

Watching a Trump speech today, Trump said, "We are not going to let them take our businesses any longer. It's not going to happen".

What does that mean?

That he wants to keep businesses from outsourcing. A policy you've been advocating and whining about for years. You seriously didn't understand this? He is fighting for an issue you claim to care about and you think what he is saying is unintelligible because he has an R next to his name? How ridiculous!

A policy he uses for his own business .

Of course not because like all business people, he wants to make money, but by placing tariffs on goods made outside the US it becomes possible for US companies to make the same profits by manufacturing goods here as the would by making them in Mexico, for example.

They wouldn't be so fond of outsourcing if it weren't heavily subsidized and had so many tax giveaways making it feasible.

The Employment Prevention Agency is by far the most fascist democrat entity destroying our industrial base....

I agree, Americans need to make things. But when people make things they get a paycheck. When they get a paycheck they see democrats robbing them and vote republican. Democrats simply can't have that on their plantation....

That may be so, but it doesn't matter how cheap labor gets, it's never ever cheap enough to suit many owners and Wall Street, and that mindlessness makes a lot of people vote Democrat as well.