Trump for all his craziness is vehemently pro business. I know the whole tech crowd wants him to crash and burn but the stock market rising is no surprise to me.
Whether it's worth the damage done to the poor and the environment is yet to be seen.
Whether it's worth the damage done to the poor and the environment is yet to be seen.
US "web" companies must now store EU data in Europe. Any foreign company that wants to compete in Europe needs a European office and datacentres now. Good luck getting European customers for a US startup now.
China is notoriously protectionist. They manipulate their currency exchange rate, engage in market dumping to hurt competitors in other countries, require foreign firms to have a Chinese "partner" which is more like a parasite that steals money and IP.
There's many more examples. To a certain degree the US government has a job of protecting US businesses just like it protects it's citizens.
For important resources like steel and rare earth elements, US businesses have been driven out not because it's so expensive but because foreign countries heavily subsidize the industry and create artificially low prices. "Bringing the jobs back" will work but only if the US govt retaliates with import tariffs or subsidies of its own
I think this might generally be correct however he seems to be more vehemently "Pro American Worker" and so far when that collides with his "Pro Business" stance the worker is currently winning. Attempting to get businesses to repatriate jobs is not necessarily a "pro-business" stance.
Further, if the ACA benefits anyone, it benefits people who don't work but receive subsidies. So getting rid of it is a decided plus for workers.
Jobs in government, not in private industry. Would you rather we all go on the gov payroll?
Arguably companies would come in to replace the government. Private security, private trash pickup, private road maintenance. It would work, but I'm not sure how well
Sure, the ACA has some short-term, especially anecdotal benefits. I'm glad your wife was able to use it productively while it was available to her... but the ACA is loaded up with give-aways paid for with other people's money - so it's unsurprising that there are some who think it's a good deal for them.
If I give you my neighbor's big-screen TV, I'm sure you'd have a great story about getting a big-screen TV. But you aren't the only party in that transaction.
Long term, the system set up by the ACA is collapsing. Insurers are fleeing from the markets because they don't make economic sense without ever increasing government subsidies to the industry.
Worse, the big promise of the ACA was that it would lower costs for everyone without changing their doctor-patient relationships. Those were lies. Not just mistakes, but pre-meditated and documented lies.
Many states have their own programs as well.
It's a gaint fucking mess they need to cut the shit and just throw everyone on Medicaid
I heavily support the pre-existing condition clause in the ACA but the rest of it is a clusterfuck. The way it's designed inscentivizes only the riskiest people to join groups and everyone else to go without insurance.
The ACA's "profit model" is also greatly skewed towards overcharging the young and healthy. Our oldest generation is the most wealthy population group and our youngest are reletively one of the poorest in US history... As a young healthy male my insurance cost has gone from $55 to over $300 a month due to the ACA. I recently just ditched insurance because that's too much money to pay for a service I get hardly any benefit from.
It's yet another money siphon built by the boomers to fuck over the mellenials.
Sharing equally in the productivity of the society is just communism. It fails every time because people have varying levels of productivity but when you compensate everyone equally no matter what effort they apply, you get a tragedy of the commons situation.
Communism has been tried many times and has never been shown to be good for workers.
I think looking at it as a zero sum thing is framing it the wrong way anyway though.
Does it have to be an executive action?
Traditionally, the President wasn't the one creating the laws to begin with. So if Congress passes a law and Trump signs it, is it his action then?
I take that back, the 2nd part is beyond even statism.
One of the key provisions of the TPP was to force Asian countries to adhere to strict US copyright laws. And that makes sense, since IP companies' products are what the US really exports on makes money on - nobody is buying US fridges and ovens in large quantities. And if you can't get China to respect IP laws, then you have no future there.
Maybe I'm completely confused about the TPP, but I'm frankly pretty surprised the market's reaction so far has been one giant "meh".
The text of the agreement was drawn up as secretively as possible because everybody knew the only point was to help the fortune 500 and fuck over everyone else.
I'm glad it's dead.
Like what? If anything, more jobs instead of more and more social programs would do a lot to actually get people to a decent livelihood...
Even if the factories come back, the jobs won't.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...
No he is definitely not. Trump is anti-business and he makes that very clear. His campaign promises and actions since election are super clear that he is pro-his-wealth and not pro-business.
A pro-business politician would raise taxes on the wealthy, provide tax cuts for the middle class, increase the corporate tax rate, improve immigration so that more people could come in to the country, address massive business risks like climate change with a serious face, improve healthcare for everyone in nation, etc. A pro-business politician would want a healthy and wealthy middle class, a stable climate, and good tax structure to incentivize smart people to come here and build useful things. More businesses are more likely to succeed in a society that is healthy, resourceful with its environment, and with enough wealth shared that income inequality does not destabilize the structure.
Trump is the opposite of being pro-business. Trump is not fiscally conservative or pro-business at all - the very idea that he is would be considered an "alternative fact" - a lie.
It's simple Tragedy of the Commons at first. Republicans / Republican Presidents are generally pro-greed and pro-riches, not pro-business, and those are different things. What you want in a good business environment is not achieved with Republican policies. This can be seen with the past few presidents - good economic times and growth with Democrat policies, and poor economic times and decline with Republicans.
Specifics.
> A pro-business politician would raise taxes on the wealthy, provide tax cuts for the middle class, increase the corporate tax rate
Henry Ford is the good example here of showing why this is pro-business. Give your country a stable, wealthy middle class (pay your auto-workers more, a lot more), and then they will be able to buy your products and your company will thrive. Roads will be built for your cars to drive on, with those taxes!
Wealthy people are important in a capitalistic society, but income inequality and extreme wealth present dangers, not useful things. Income inequality will catch up with the business as the middle class fades and doesn't buy their products.
Want a pro-business environment? Increase corporate taxes to fund schools and education and infrastructure so that more people will grow up healthy and wealthy and wanting to buy things.
> Improve immigration so that more people could come in to the country
Is this really a debate, especially here? Most of the smart people in the world who can create wealth and businesses do NOT live in the USA. If they wanted to live here, or did live here, that would be great.
> Address massive business risks like climate change with a serious face
The climate is changing, and it's going to kill a lot of people that could have been buying your products. It's going to displace hundreds of millions of families and settlements. Food production and distribution is going to be wildly affected. Basic things that should be stable in a business environment will not be stable. Climate change is the biggest RISK for corporate profits in the world (though right now you could also see it as an opportunity - if you recognize that it needs to be addressed).
> improve healthcare for everyone in nation
Again is this really a debate? Isn't it obvious that healthy people will be better for business? Do you want your customer base to be dying? Or your employees worried about disease? That's not useful for business.
And yet the USA is the dominant economy in the world. How do you square that reality with your claim of what a "pro-business politician" would do?
You'd think that if your policies were good for business, countries that had adopted those policies would be the most economically successful.
We could very well owe the current dominance of the US due to the unfolding of events in World War 2. Aside from that, there are many countries that could never have the dominance the US has just due to the difference in population alone. An economy based on a domestic market of 300 million people is always going to have some advantages (and disadvantages) compared to one with 3 million people, even if those 3 million people are better off on average in every measurable way.
So many other variables...
A number of economists disagree with you.
* Opaque
* Consumer paid
* Subject to Perversion through Deductions / Inversions
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/opinion/abolish-the-corpo...