Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 02, 2018, 11:36:44 am
-
Helping Jeff keep up with Trump-related news. Looks like he missed this one. You are welcome, Jeff.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/979970/donald-trump-travel-ban-supreme-court-decision-muslim-ban
-
Let's also add the GREAT (https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jul/02/its-a-huge-subsidy-the-48bn-gamble-to-lure-foxconn-to-america?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Collections+2017&utm_term=279921&subid=20912410&CMP=GT_US_collection) move by Foxconn to build a manufacturing facility in southern Wisconsin. According to the President, "Frankly, they weren’t going to come to this country. I hate to say it, if I didn’t get elected, they wouldn’t be in this country. They would not have done this in this country. I think you know that very well.” I'm sure that the $4.8 billion (yup, you got that right, billion) in tax incentives of all kinds played no part in Foxconn's decision.
-
Another Trump win. No thanks to this beacon of brilliance. Or maybe she's praying for Trump to drop dead.
(https://www.usmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/461857054_Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg-467.jpg)
-
Let's also add the GREAT (https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jul/02/its-a-huge-subsidy-the-48bn-gamble-to-lure-foxconn-to-america?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+Collections+2017&utm_term=279921&subid=20912410&CMP=GT_US_collection) move by Foxconn to build a manufacturing facility in southern Wisconsin. According to the President, "Frankly, they weren’t going to come to this country. I hate to say it, if I didn’t get elected, they wouldn’t be in this country. They would not have done this in this country. I think you know that very well.” I'm sure that the $4.8 billion (yup, you got that right, billion) in tax incentives of all kinds played no part in Foxconn's decision.
So the tariffs on our northern “ally” and neighbor are meant to offset these kind of give-aways to the Chinese?
Well, I wonder if the out of work coal and steel workers will now be assemblying iPhones? And since Wisconsin is a right-to-work state, no union soup for those workers. But wait, isn’t communism a kind of union? And how would the SCOTUS decision* apply to communism?
*Different decision but a victory for the Trump party nonetheless.
-
So the tariffs on our northern “ally” and neighbor are meant to offset these kind of give-aways to the Chinese?
This is the "money" quote from the article, "Foxconn itself has been more circumspect on the number of jobs it will create, saying in a press release it will “create 3,000 jobs with the potential to grow to 13,000 new jobs”. Even if 13,000 new jobs are created, Wisconsin would be paying $346,153 per job at a subsidy of $4.5bn. An astronomical sum, but nothing compared to the $1.5m per job cost if the deal ends up creating just 3,000 new positions."
Really good negotiating by the Governor of Wisconsin. I wonder if President Trump would have cut a better deal.
-
... Wisconsin would be paying $346,153 per job...
Let's not get carried away with that "logic." By the way, that's the same "logic" the left uses against "tax cuts for the rich." As in: "Trump is giving $$illions to the rich."
No, Wisconsin isn't "paying," nor is government "giving" to the rich. Both are simply not taking that money away, from Foxconn or the rich.
Look at that this way:
Foxconn doesn't' come to WI = zero taxes, zero new jobs
Foxconn comes to Wi = zero or some taxes, 3,000-13,000 jobs
Job creation has a multiplier effect on the economy, so Wisconsin wins even with zero taxes from Foxconn.
-
It's no use, Slobodan. To any leftist the economy is a fixed-size pie. No leftist comes near recognizing that an intelligent person willing to take a risk often is able to build something new and increase the size and productivity of the economy. To a leftist the only question to be answered is "who gets what part of the fixed pie?" A leftist never will understand what you're saying because there's nothing in his brain or in his background that can make contact with that kind of reality.
-
Let's not get carried away with that "logic." By the way, that's the same "logic" the left uses against "tax cuts for the rich." As in: "Trump is giving $$illions to the rich."
No, Wisconsin isn't "paying," nor is government "giving" to the rich. Both are simply not taking that money away, from Foxconn or the rich.
Look at that this way:
Foxconn doesn't' come to WI = zero taxes, zero new jobs
Foxconn comes to Wi = zero or some taxes, 3,000-13,000 jobs
Job creation has a multiplier effect on the economy, so Wisconsin wins even with zero taxes from Foxconn.
You are missing the fact that probably 30-40% of the workforce will come from Illinois (factory will be right across the border) and will be taking their earnings back to that state. It's not as clear cut as you would like it to be. It's pretty much the same story as building sports stadiums, lots of state money used and very little return.
-
You are missing the fact that probably 30-40% of the workforce will come from Illinois (factory will be right across the border) and will be taking their earnings back to that state. It's not as clear cut as you would like it to be. It's pretty much the same story as building sports stadiums, lots of state money used and very little return.
Oh, please! Then it is a win for both Illinois and Wisconsin.
The stadium analogy is flawed, as WI is not investing any money (I am assuming that, as I have no details of the deal; I am simply reacting to the statement that tax incentives = paying).
-
Let's not get carried away with that "logic." By the way, that's the same "logic" the left uses against "tax cuts for the rich." As in: "Trump is giving $$illions to the rich."
No, Wisconsin isn't "paying," nor is government "giving" to the rich. Both are simply not taking that money away, from Foxconn or the rich.
Look at that this way:
Foxconn doesn't' come to WI = zero taxes, zero new jobs
Foxconn comes to Wi = zero or some taxes, 3,000-13,000 jobs
Job creation has a multiplier effect on the economy, so Wisconsin wins even with zero taxes from Foxconn.
I'm curious to what extent you feel corporations or individuals should be taxed, and what, if any financial obligation those entities / individuals should have to their city/state/nation.
-
It's no use, Slobodan. To any leftist the economy is a fixed-size pie. No leftist comes near recognizing that an intelligent person willing to take a risk often is able to build something new and increase the size and productivity of the economy. To a leftist the only question to be answered is "who gets what part of the fixed pie?" A leftist never will understand what you're saying because there's nothing in his brain or in his background that can make contact with that kind of reality.
Is it possible for you to engage in discussion without being insulting or dismissive of positions that don't align with your own?
-
Is it possible for you to engage in discussion without being insulting or dismissive of positions that don't align with your own?
Not really and it's the principal reason that I no longer respond to his posts when he is directly trolling me.
-
It's no use, Slobodan. To any leftist the economy is a fixed-size pie. No leftist comes near recognizing that an intelligent person willing to take a risk often is able to build something new and increase the size and productivity of the economy. To a leftist the only question to be answered is "who gets what part of the fixed pie?" A leftist never will understand what you're saying because there's nothing in his brain or in his background that can make contact with that kind of reality.
Russ, Slobodan,
Do either of you know what the average pay will be for most of the workers at the plant? Before you start lauding the creation of jobs, remember that the fast food industry mostly pays at the minimum wage. The Foxconn plant will undoubtedly be highly automated and while a few engineers will be compensated well (they may be Chinese,) most of the grunts will get...what?
I’m curious as to why an industry that flourishes by the use of low payed grunt workers in China is setting up shop in the US?
-
I'm curious to what extent you feel corporations or individuals should be taxed, and what, if any financial obligation those entities / individuals should have to their city/state/nation.
You might have noticed, James, that I did not go into any judgement on taxes in general. Simply reacting, almost mathematically, to the notion that tax incentives or tax cuts = paying.
In general, I am not against taxes. And in this case, there will be some even if Foxconn pays zero, because extra employment and the multiplier effect will generate sales and income taxes.
Would I like that Foxconn et al pay more? Sure, who wouldn't. But better a bird in hand than two in the bush (with my apologies to PETA).
-
Russ, Slobodan,
Do either of you know what the average pay will be for most of the workers at the plant?...
It would be infinitely higher than no pay.
-
Oh, please! Then it is a win for both Illinois and Wisconsin.
The stadium analogy is flawed, as WI is not investing any money (I am assuming that, as I have no details of the deal; I am simply reacting to the statement that tax incentives = paying).
Then don't comment when you have not read anything about the agreement. You can start with this post (http://econbrowser.com/archives/2017/08/not-foxconn-in-the-henhouse) from Menzi Chinn an economics professor at Univ of Wisconsin.
-
You might have noticed, James, that I did not go into the judgement on taxes in general. Simply reacting, almost mathematically, to the notion that tax incentives or tax cuts = paying.
In general, I am not against taxes. And in this case, there will be some even if Foxconn pays zero, because extra employment and the multiplier effect will generate sales and income taxes.
Would I like that Foxconn et al pay more? Sure, who wouldn't. But better a bird in hand than two in the bush (with my apologies to PETA).
I did notice - I was asking out of genuine curiosity. I'm not of the opinion that tax cuts/incentives generally pay for themselves - but note that I'm also not of the opinion that that's always a bad thing, or even that it's necessary that they do. By the same token, I remain unconvinced that attracting new jobs or a major employer is automatically a win, and I imagine that any model attempting to quantify either side would likely come up short. All that said, those kinds of economic impact studies are pretty damn far from my areas of expertise.
-
Then don't comment when you have not read anything about the agreement...
I am not commenting on the agreement, only on the flawed notion that tax incentives = paying. I am also commenting on your post, which, by the way, is an attempt to distract from my OP. You did not state that WI is actually investing anything. I have zero interest in reading the extra material. If you state yourself something to that effect, even if by quoting the relevant part, I will comment on that.
And for the record, I think that stadium financing in general is a bad deal if it doesn't return enough on the state investment. Then again, panem et circenses is a time-proven formula to keep the population "happy," so maybe the state is getting enough back after all.
-
I did notice - I was asking out of genuine curiosity. I'm not of the opinion that tax cuts/incentives generally pay for themselves - but note that I'm also not of the opinion that that's always a bad thing, or even that it's necessary that they do. By the same token, I remain unconvinced that attracting new jobs or a major employer is automatically a win, and I imagine that any model attempting to quantify either side would likely come up short. All that said, those kinds of economic impact studies are pretty damn far from my areas of expertise.
The state's own economic analysis shows this not reaching the break even point until 2043 based on an average salary of $53K/worker. Foxconn has already changed plans and is building a smaller initial factory than they stated. Foxconn has promised things to communities in the past only to cancel projects (just ask the fine citizens of Harrisburg PA - I'll leave it to those interested to Google the references as you all really need to do some research instead of just posting random musings that make no sense).
-
The state's own economic analysis shows this not reaching the break even point...
What break even point? What is state investing? Hypothetical tax revenue?
-
Helping Jeff keep up with Trump-related news. Looks like he missed this one. You are welcome, Jeff.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/979970/donald-trump-travel-ban-supreme-court-decision-muslim-ban
This is only incidentally a "Trump" decision.
In reality it's an affirmation of the right of the executive - any executive - to exercise ridiculously wide latitude in the name of "national security." I think the dangers of that approach have been clearly illustrated in each of the last 3 administrations, and it'll be a great day for America when fear stops driving the allowance of unrestrained executive power. It's understood, I think, that the nation needs *someone* to be "in charge," but that's why you grant short-term decision making power, but then require the executive to conform to legal norms in the execution of ongoing actions.
Allowing things like this to stand gives you fun stuff like secret FISA courts with no real oversight, continuous droning of foreign civilians because OMG TERRORISM, and the use of state sanctioned torture.
-
It would be infinitely higher than no pay.
Infinitely? Well no, though Scrooge Trump might say “...anything is better than nothing.” Unfortunately there are no ghosts to haunts us nowadays.
-
What break even point? What is state investing? Hypothetical tax revenue?
Why do you persist in asking me stupid questions when I've already posted links for you to read. Do I now have to start ignoring you just as I do Russ, because of inane comments?
-
It would be infinitely higher than no pay.
Exactly! But there are those who won't be able to understand that simple fact.
-
Why do you persist in asking me stupid questions when I've already posted links for you to read. Do I now have to start ignoring you just as I do Russ, because of inane comments?
You'd better read those links, Slobodan, or you're liable to be reported.
-
This is only incidentally a "Trump" decision.
In reality it's an affirmation of the right of the executive - any executive - to exercise ridiculously wide latitude in the name of "national security."
Actually, no. The decision turned on the proper interpretation of an explicit and exceptionally broad statutory grant of authority (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182) to the president by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act:
Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
[8 U.S.C. §1182(f).]
The only real substantive issue was whether Trump's campaign statements about proclaiming a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" and other comments that similarly suggested the executive order under challenge in this litigation had an unconstitutional purpose of discriminating against one religion.
The Court concluded that Trump's executive order was "neutral on its face" (i.e., in the literal language of the order) and that it had been implemented after a rational fact-finding process to determine which nationals of specific countries would be affected. The minority argued that Trump's executive order was motivated "by religious animus."
If the issue had been national security, it's not clear that there would even have been a dissent:
If, however, its sole ratio decidendi was one of national security, then it would be unlikely to violate either the statute or the Constitution.
[Breyer and Kagan, dissenting.]
I'm personally not pleased with the Court's decision, but to claim it was based on a "ridiculously wide latitude in the name of 'national security'" is, I think, a stretch.
-
What break even point? What is state investing? Hypothetical tax revenue?
Separate from the tax breaks, local, state and federal payments of around $700 million for improvements to roads, access, utilities, etc will be paid to support the new plant. I don't know whether the arrangement is beneficial to Wisconsin. But it is beneficial to Foxconn. There's a lot of competition among the various states to attract business. And business is taking advantage of the competition. I hope Wisconsin benefits as it will be helpful to my fellow Americans. Good luck to them.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/28/technology/foxconn-wisconsin-plant/index.html
-
This is only incidentally a "Trump" decision.
In reality it's an affirmation of the right of the executive - any executive - to exercise ridiculously wide latitude in the name of "national security." I think the dangers of that approach have been clearly illustrated in each of the last 3 administrations, and it'll be a great day for America when fear stops driving the allowance of unrestrained executive power. It's understood, I think, that the nation needs *someone* to be "in charge," but that's why you grant short-term decision making power, but then require the executive to conform to legal norms in the execution of ongoing actions.
Allowing things like this to stand gives you fun stuff like secret FISA courts with no real oversight, continuous droning of foreign civilians because OMG TERRORISM, and the use of state sanctioned torture.
Interestingly, Trump has had a rather liberal outlook on our involvement on the world stage. Generally, he opposed the Iraq War for example. When he said NATO's purpose is over or at least diminished, all the heretofore liberals who opposed American involvement against Communists for the most part for decades and other wars, suddenly became hawks rattling their rusty swords towards Russia. They never noticed Russia when they were the Soviet Union.
I happen to agree with you that presidents have too much power. The founders were opposed to it. But Congress has over the years transferred the power given to them to the president because they're chickens. They rather let someone else make the hard decisions while they argue over less consequential things.
-
Getting back to the OP, if I was president and thought that gee wiz, we need oil; I announced I intend to open both coasts to American drilling out to 500 miles and screw all other countries. And then someone told me that I couldn't do that because I'd be violating the constitution because we have signed laws of the sea that restrict us to 200 miles. So I then discussed it with experts who help me draft a presidential order that open up all shores to drilling to 200 miles. Someone sues me in supreme court and says my intent was to violate the constitution, and declare my order illegal. Well, as long as the order was legal and constitution, the order would stand. That's basically what happen with the travel ban.
A lot of things are said and discussed before something becomes law. Some of it is said through ignorance. Some through political hyperbole. As long as the law itself is written and carried out constitutionally, that's what counts.
And I'll punch anyone who disagrees with me. :)
-
Why do you persist in asking me stupid questions when I've already posted links for you to read. Do I now have to start ignoring you just as I do Russ, because of inane comments?
They say there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers, as you just exemplified.
Shall I remind you that it was your inane practice of posting links that led to a new forum rule, which I will graciously quote here for your convenience (bold mine):
This is a discussion forum; in case anyone is in any doubt about what that means, the forum exists for members to hold discussions to which those who choose to post can make their own contributions.
That does not preclude including links to external web pages if they are relevant to the topic under discussion. However, any post which includes such a link must also include text which
- summarises the information contained in the linked page;
- indicates, if it is not obvious, why that information is of interest;
- if the linked page is long, indicates where in that page the relevant information is to be found.
Link for the above: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=125586.0
So, no, I am not going to follow your links until you provide the above, which in essence would answer my simple question.
Once again, in your attention-diverting post you posted a stupid claim that tax incentives amount to payments to investors. I took issue with that and proved it wrong. You did not mention there and then other state investments that might (or not) amount to payments. You just made a claim without providing a support for it. Hence my question. A link is not a support in itself, without following the above, fairly customary rules of a civilized discussion.
-
Actually, no. The decision turned on the proper interpretation of an explicit and exceptionally broad statutory grant of authority (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182) to the president by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act:
The only real substantive issue was whether Trump's campaign statements about proclaiming a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" and other comments that similarly suggested the executive order under challenge in this litigation had an unconstitutional purpose of discriminating against one religion.
The Court concluded that Trump's executive order was "neutral on its face" (i.e., in the literal language of the order) and that it had been implemented after a rational fact-finding process to determine which nationals of specific countries would be affected. The minority argued that Trump's executive order was motivated "by religious animus."
If the issue had been national security, it's not clear that there would even have been a dissent:
I'm personally not pleased with the Court's decision, but to claim it was based on a "ridiculously wide latitude in the name of 'national security'" is, I think, a stretch.
Fair enough, but do you have any concern that the various factions of the court seem increasingly likely to attempt to find statutory or other justification for ideological predetermined positions?
-
do you have any concern that the various factions of the court seem increasingly likely to attempt to find statutory or other justification for ideological predetermined positions?
Honestly, I don't know with any confidence what motivates the individual justices. I covered the Supreme Court as a news reporter for 12 years (1972-1983), and one of the few generalizations I tentatively was comfortable making was that judicial philosophy rather than political ideology was the prime factor in determining the approach that would be taken by the members of the Court in the minority of cases where there was significant difference of opinion.
Judicial philosophy and ideology may superficially seem to coincide at times: for example, Justice Gorsuch's somewhat nontraditional reliance on statutory literalism and constitutional original intent may lead to results the public and press consider to be "conservative." But, actually, I would argue that this is a fairly radical approach to judicial interpretation—despite Gorsuch's expressed aversion to judicial activism—precisely because it runs counter to the mainstream approach of the majority of federal judges, including most of his colleagues on the Supreme Court.
-
Exactly! But there are those who won't be able to understand that simple fact.
Maybe people could work for food and shelter, like sharecroppers.
Shouldn't conservatives be dead against corporate subsidies? Doesn't it make more difficult for a local phone assembly company to compete?
But I predicted this kind of turn-around a while ago (to my friends anyway). The real point of globalization was to pound down wages all over the globe. Sooner or later, regions in western countries, like Wisconsin or Ohio, would become low wage areas, like Shanghai and Hong Kong used to be. Then at that point, it makes sense to outsource to those places. Detroit might be next.