It is going to take years to break through the false constructs of radical left-wing economic principles which have been sold by modern academia and corporate media. However, eventually people will recognize once again that being allowed to keep their own money, the outcome of their own labor, is not an expense on government.
The current Carrier HVAC story is an example of economic cognitive dissonance. Allowing Carrier to keep a larger portion of their own income, to afford a larger labor force, is not a government expense. Government does not own the income, Carrier does.
The reason Mexico was the better play was simply because by changing locations the company could: A.) make more, and B.) keep more – of its own revenue. Donald Trump is attempting to reverse this cancerous economic system and create the better play right here in the U.S.A.
The term “tax expenditure” is the left-wing lingo to describe a person, company or entity being allowed to keep its own earnings. The implication within “tax expenditure” is the government owning the earnings, they don’t. Period.
There is a big difference between a real tax expenditure vis-a-vis Solyndra where the government actually pays a private entity with taxpayer funds (crony capitalism) as part of the income within their P-n-L – and a company like Carrier being allowed by government to keep a larger portion of its own revenue.
The former is an actual tax expenditure, the latter is not. Left-wing ideologues who discuss economics conflate the two examples in order to advance their own illogical and false arguments. Remember Obama’s infamous “your didn’t build that” speech?
Government allowing you to keep your own earnings, is not an expenditure – unless you align with the ideology that all earnings are the property of the state, a socialist principle, and the state can then apportion those earnings to whomever it desires, ie redistribution.
President-elect Donald Trump is a free marketeer; a Main Street capitalist.
— FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) December 1, 2016
To understand the change within the fundamental economic proposals of President-elect Donald Trump a person must be able to make the distinction between who owns your labor: you or the government?
Trump’s economic principles -to generate an expansive GDP- are dependent on entities, individuals and businesses being allowed greater financial freedom, by allowing them to keep a larger portion of their own earnings. This is the fundamental economic paradigm shift.
Predictably, when you lessen the socialistic enterprise of confiscation and redistribution the left-wing ideologues, especially the media, will instantaneously shout “trickle down economics“. This ridiculous liberalist economic mantra is similar to shouting “racist” against their opponents on social issues.
All economic activity is “trickle down” once the production value of labor is paid. When you go grocery shopping, you are participating in trickle down by spending your paycheck at the supermarket. The grocery store is benefiting from your trickle down distribution. However, unlike confiscatory tax policy, your distribution is done freely as you engage in free-market commerce.
Consider this Bloomberg headline: “Trump kicks off ‘interventionist’ approach to keep jobs in America”:
No, actually the exact opposite is true.
Trump is REMOVING confiscatory government action to drive increased GDP and expand jobs in America. Trump is allowing Carrier to keep their own earnings. Trump is lowering the burden -in this case financially- created by government. However, you can see how the left-wing ideology is inherent in the Bloomberg presentation.
Bloomberg sees allowing the independent organization, Carrier Corp., to retain a larger share of it’s own earnings as “intervention”; the only actual intervention is the lessening of the governmental confiscation. Bloomberg sees government as the owner, and Trump intervening in their confiscatory activity. In other words, Bloomberg sees this activity as a tax expenditure.
It is going to take several years before people realize how much they have been hoodwinked, and through several decades slowly nudged toward allowing the government to control what should be their own free and private economic decisions (earnings and expenditures).
President-elect Donald Trump’s tax proposals begin to shift this paradigm.
The second set of economic proposals surround the regulatory environment within the manufacturing and production equation. In the interim, Trump is highlighting the obvious contradiction within left-wing espoused manufacturing arguments.
If the need for manufacturing labor is reduced by technology and automation, then why are companies outsourcing manufacturing based on labor costs?
This is a question modern left-wing economic ideologues cannot reconcile. The reason is simple, technology and automation does not remove the labor cost, it only increases the efficiency of labor and may lower the labor cost.
The need for labor is always retained because someone has to build, maintain, and oversee the systems (robotics and automation example). As the manufacturing economy expands (making more stuff) the scope of the technological and automation needs necessarily expands.
In essence, more robots are needed, and more people are needed to oversee the robotics. Why can’t the U.S.A. be the builder of the robotics?
While some may automatically jump to the conclusion of a looming Skynet, the premise is never actually achieved because advancement and automation requires innovation. Artificial Intelligence is just that, artificial. Machines are not self-aware…. people are.