Trump acting as President

[Woobie]

Your own definition requires a close relationship as one of the elements. Describe for me this close relationship.

 

[jamil]

Your own definition requires a close relationship as one of the elements. Describe for me this close relationship.

Before we embark on this goat ****, are you positively asserting the Trump/Pence/Carrier deal isn't crony capitalism?

 

[Woobie]

Before we embark on this goat ****, are you positively asserting the Trump/Pence/Carrier deal isn't crony capitalism?

Wait, now you're assaulting goats. But you said that's what we were talking about. Stopping dancing.

I'm saying I need evidence of a close relationship to assign the term. If it is there, we'll call it what it is. If there is no evidence, then we will call it what it is, which is something besides crony capitalism. I gave you a couple of options.

 

[two70]

I think the blind support of Trump is slightly more at play, I thought us free market, no government favoritism folks would stay consistent

Well, since I happen to think that all businesses should keep more of the money they make, the carrier deal is a small step in that direction and consistent with that belief. Claiming to support the free market and also supporting confiscatory tax rates on businesses would actually be far more inconsistent.


In the rush to condemn Trump for "government favoritism" blind Trump detractors have fallen into the trap of believing the Carrier deal is primarily about saving a few jobs or keeping a campaign promise. This deal is really the opening move toward reducing the corporate tax rate and a shot across the bow of those gearing up to oppose it.

 

[Woobie]

Well, since I happen to think that all businesses should keep more of the money they make, the carrier deal is a small step in that direction and consistent with that belief. Claiming to support the free market and also supporting confiscatory tax rates on businesses would actually be far more inconsistent.


In the rush to condemn Trump for "government favoritism" blind Trump detractors have fallen into the trap of believing the Carrier deal is primarily about saving a few jobs or keeping a campaign promise. This deal is really the opening move toward reducing the corporate tax rate and a shot across the bow of those gearing up to oppose it.

Well, I hope so. But if he doesn't follow through on the rest, then all this is just political theatre and picking winners and losers.

 

[jamil]

Wait, now you're assaulting goats. But you said that's what we were talking about. Stopping dancing.

I'm saying I need evidence of a close relationship to assign the term. If it is there, we'll call it what it is. If there is no evidence, then we will call it what it is, which is something besides crony capitalism. I gave you a couple of options.

Carrier announces they're moving to Mexico. Trump uses that in a campaign. Before he takes office he decides the political optics would be awesome if he could get Carrier to stay. He gets together with the Governor of Indiana, who also happens to be the VPEOTUS, and invites Carrier CEO to Trump tower for a powwow to discuss how the state of Indiana could be favorable to his business in the distribution of government grants and special tax breaks. And then Trump offers a federal government stick by implying that certain government contracts might face a dubious future Carrier doesn't play ball. Carrier CEO accepts, thereby establishing the crony relationship. I know the first google hit was wikipedia, but go ahead and read the rest of the article. You really have to want to believe it's not crony capitalism to believe it's not crony capitalism.

 

[jamil]

Well, since I happen to think that all businesses should keep more of the money they make, the carrier deal is a small step in that direction and consistent with that belief. Claiming to support the free market and also supporting confiscatory tax rates on businesses would actually be far more inconsistent.


In the rush to condemn Trump for "government favoritism" blind Trump detractors have fallen into the trap of believing the Carrier deal is primarily about saving a few jobs or keeping a campaign promise. This deal is really the opening move toward reducing the corporate tax rate and a shot across the bow of those gearing up to oppose it.

Using crony capitalism to prepare the way is still crony capitalism. I'm not blind in this discussion. I see the reality of such deals clearly.

 

[Woobie]

Carrier announces they're moving to Mexico. Trump uses that in a campaign. Before he takes office he decides the political optics would be awesome if he could get Carrier to stay. He gets together with the Governor of Indiana, who also happens to be the VPEOTUS, and invites Carrier CEO to Trump tower for a powwow to discuss how the state of Indiana could be favorable to his business in the distribution of government grants and special tax breaks. And then Trump offers a federal government stick by implying that certain government contracts might face a dubious future Carrier doesn't play ball. Carrier CEO accepts, thereby establishing the crony relationship. I know the first google hit was wikipedia, but go ahead and read the rest of the article. You really have to want to believe it's not crony capitalism to believe it's not crony capitalism.

You just have a very broad definition, then. Under your definition, I can see how you would come to that conclusion.

I'm looking for that close relationship, and I don't see it. No one is hooking up their brother in law or former business partner.

And what in the world is illegitimate about telling someone if they move their work overseas we won't do business with them anymore? Good grief, are we that globalist?

Seriously, the only dubious thing here is the unfair tax advantage established, and it's not like it's the first time it's been done in Indiana, or heck, with Carrier. It shouldn't happen, and that system needs to be fixed. But unless you can say they received that benefit through some close relationship (note, not one or two phone calls and a face to face meeting), then it fails even the definition you yourself provided. You really have to want to believe it's crony capitalism.

 

[jamil]

You just have a very broad definition, then. Under your definition, I can see how you would come to that conclusion.

I'm looking for that close relationship, and I don't see it. No one is hooking up their brother in law or former business partner.

And what in the world is illegitimate about telling someone if they move their work overseas we won't do business with them anymore? Good grief, are we that globalist?

Seriously, the only dubious thing here is the unfair tax advantage established, and it's not like it's the first time it's been done in Indiana, or heck, with Carrier. It shouldn't happen, and that system needs to be fixed. But unless you can say they received that benefit through some close relationship (note, not one or two phone calls and a face to face meeting), then it fails even the definition you yourself provided. You really have to want to believe it's crony capitalism.

Are you seeking a definition exclusive enogh to support your conclusion rather than inform it? This has been my understanding of crony capitalsm all along. After hearing about Carrier's reconsideration, I was hopeful that there weren't special favors and consequences given as an individual deal, but rather Trump pursuaded the Carrier CEO to stay by only promising that his administration would work to eliminate the conditions that make companies like Carrier decide to move. I'd be okay with that. That's not crony capitalism.

 

[foszoe]

Are you seeking a definition exclusive enogh to support your conclusion rather than inform it? This has been my understanding of crony capitalsm all along. After hearing about Carrier's reconsideration, I was hopeful that there weren't special favors and consequences given as an individual deal, but rather Trump pursuaded the Carrier CEO to stay by only promising that his administration would work to eliminate the conditions that make companies like Carrier decide to move. I'd be okay with that. That's not crony capitalism.

Do you actually know all of the details of the deal? Unless you do, its all really hearsay crony capitalism at best.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Unfortunately this particular deal was in the works before Trump was president. The factory is already built in Mexico. He had to do something different for this particular deal than ones to come. When he drops corporate tax rate to 15% that's going to do a HUGE part to keeping people from moving.

When a company has already built a factory and planned a move for 18 months it takes a bit more work. Crony capitalism nothing, it's the fact of the situation.

 

[jamil]

Unfortunately this particular deal was in the works before Trump was president. The factory is already built in Mexico. He had to do something different for this particular deal than ones to come. When he drops corporate tax rate to 15% that's going to do a HUGE part to keeping people from moving.

When a company has already built a factory and planned a move for 18 months it takes a bit more work. Crony capitalism nothing, it's the fact of the situation.

So you're in the "doesn't matter" camp.

 

[Woobie]

Are you seeking a definition exclusive enogh to support your conclusion rather than inform it? This has been my understanding of crony capitalsm all along. After hearing about Carrier's reconsideration, I was hopeful that there weren't special favors and consequences given as an individual deal, but rather Trump pursuaded the Carrier CEO to stay by only promising that his administration would work to eliminate the conditions that make companies like Carrier decide to move. I'd be okay with that. That's not crony capitalism.

I'm not looking for any definition other than the real one, which specifically requires a close relationship. I'm not willing to twist the meaning to fit my preconceived notion. If you want to do it, that's fine. But you need to dismount the high horse and admit that's what you're doing. Or show me some sort of evidence of a relationship beyond an hour meeting.

Since it clearly meets part of the definition, let's find something where it meets the whole definition.

 

[hoosierdoc]

So you're in the "doesn't matter" camp.

sigh.

what "doesn't matter" camp would that be? I'm stating that objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.

 

[churchmouse]

I agree with that and that Pence had a tad more incentive to get the deal done when his ticket won office.

Most likely true.
So this deal had to be somewhere in the wings when Trump/Pence sat down with those in charge at Carrier.

 

[foszoe]

Most likely true.
So this deal had to be somewhere in the wigs when Trump/Pence sat down with those in charge at Carrier.

But Trump insists that is his REAL hair!!!!

 

[indiucky]

Most likely true.
So this deal had to be somewhere in the wigs when Trump/Pence sat down with those in charge at Carrier.

Must be...It looks like you can hide a bit in this one...

 

[churchmouse]

But Trump insists that is his REAL hair!!!!

Part of that is I am sure...........

 

[churchmouse]

But Trump insists that is his REAL hair!!!!

Okay I fixed.......damn I wish I could type.

 

[foszoe]

Okay I fixed.......damn I wish I could type.

Nah....It just adds character to a real character