Trump threatens ‘consequences’ for U.S. firms that relocate offshore

Washington Post ^ | December 1, 2016 | Ylan Q. Mui, Matea Gold, and Max Ehrenfreund

[C19fan]

President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday warned that the government would punish companies seeking to move operations overseas with “consequences,” setting the stage for an unusual level of intervention by the White House into private enterprise. Trump’s remarks came as he triumphantly celebrated a decision by the heating and air-conditioning company Carrier to reverse its plans to close a furnace plant here and move to Mexico, helping keep 1,100 jobs in Indianapolis. About 800 of those were manufacturing positions that had been scheduled to move south of the border, said a person familiar with the negotiations.

[ari-freedom]

Trump said that Carrier’s biggest problem wasn’t taxes but rather a bunch of regulations that he didn’t even realize existed. There is so much junk in the regulatory system that the best way to find it is to call up these companies and let them tell you what is really going on

[ari-freedom]

But only in combination of doing everything we can to lower taxes and regulations

[TheStickman]

I agree 100%.

The de-regulation of American business is paramount to bringing back industries we literally ran off shore with too many nonsensical regulations. For decades the regulators have diminished our economy with anti-America BS.

[trebb]

Consequences is more than I am willing to support but, if he wants offer incentives, that’s different and I will support that.

LOL! The same folks who push the consequences meme never carped about how Obama threatened consequences for those who refused to cooperate in the illegal/un-Constitutional ObamaCare.

Trump's "consequences" are actually a combination of incentives and penalties (tariffs) which make perfect business sense if one actually wants to fight for American Citizens.

[OldGuard1]

Indeed. When did we as a party become opposed to businesses being given the freedom to strive towards achieving economically optimal solutions? If you have to be threatening companies to stay - or giving them incentives that ~other~ companies don’t get, for that matter - then that’s wrong. Our politicians job is to make the entire economic environment in the country such that companies ~want~ to stay. That it’s economically advantageous to stay.

Yes, labor in America is expensive compared to a lot of places. But we make that up in technological innovation and by avoiding the corruption and bribery you have in countries like China and India.

Or at least we’re supposed to.

[Labyrinthos]

Agreed: In a free-enterprise, capitalistic society, the key is not to punish businesses for leaving, but to give them reasons to stay.

[usconservative]

Trump needs to find out what makes US manufactured goods uncompetitive and remove them.

#1. Confiscatory tax rates that aren't competitive with the rest of the industrialized world.

#2. Cost of regulatory compliance (EPA Mandates, tax compliance, etc..)

Fix these two, the rest takes care of itself. Reagan proved that.

[NorthMountain]

If you look at EPA rules in our current state of a gross lack of heavy industry to sustain our economy, you will notice that regulation in most cases has driven heavy industry to other countries with much less regulation. And that is the root cause of the problem.

And threats of 'consequences' won't make the problem go away. Government created the problem. The only peaceful way to solve the problem is for government to get its head out of its ass: quit creating problems, repeal/rescind the problems it has already created.

[proud American in Canada]

Great post!

[LouisianaJoanof Arc]

Trump is effective.

Let him do hiis job

[moovova]

Great post (especially the screw you thing to WP), but don’t forget about that little thing called Obamacare.

[freedomfiter2]

Yes, we should stop threatening consequences for murder and rape. Just provide incentives for people who don’t do those things. Consequences will only keep people from residing in the US.

[freedomfiter2]

Allowing access to our huge market is a good incentive.

[Alberta's Child]

Uh -- whut?

Equating something that could be a prudent business decision with murder and rape completely undermines your position.

[Alberta's Child]

Part of the challenge there is that we're getting less "huge" over time.

We're still a prime market, but the reality is that 310 million people in the U.S. is shrinking in its appeal compared to more than 2 billion people in China and India alone.

[momincombatboots]

Like millions of our taxpayer dollars to carrier? That always works dt.. democrats have been doing it for decades. No wonder the carrier ceo was so grateful. I the millions of taxpayer dollars isn’t a one time credit, I bet. Pay to play, or paid to play I suppose.

[sarge83]

Reagan got it right, make the country attractive for business small and big and competitive and no one will want to leave.

I’m all for free trade as long as it is totally free trade, otherwise forget it.