Trump to Announce Carrier Plant Will Keep ~1000 Jobs in U.S.

Other foreign governments doesn't play by the same free market rules. Don't be naïve.

Other countries doesn't care about you or the American people.

Our suppose to be allies like South Korea and Japan has the US trade department being concerned about their currency manipulation. This is not including Trump's single out China's currency manipulation statements i.e. Trump is actually being careful with South Korea and Japan.

@ronvalencia: Keep telling yourself that.

http://www.academia.edu/26191442/Protectionism_in_East_Asia_Analyzing_trade_barriers_in_Japan_and_South_Korea_regarding_the_automotive_industry

Japan

Japan has been accused of currency manipulation by multiple parties within the last five years. The Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally, presidential candidates Donald J. Trump and Hillary R. Clinton and German chancellor Angela Merkel are among these figures, decrying the Japanese monetary policy (Obe and Martin 2013; Ashizuka 2016; Bloomberg 2013; Trump 2015). Nevertheless Japan has never officially been labeled a currency manipulator by a foreign government. The treasure report in 2015 noted that the yen depreciated 12% against the dollar and 8.1% on a real, trade weighted basis over the course of 2014 and stagnated against the dollar through end-September, while rising 4.9% in a real, trade weighted basis. Nonetheless the treasury did not find any grave disturbances, but noted that “other estimates point to some degree of undervaluation” (USDoT 2015: 21). In March 2016, EU officials have also issued a warning towards Japan, to not intervene in the foreign-exchange market (Nakamichi 2016). The Economic Policy Institute (Scott 2010; 2015) paints a clearer picture of Japan as a currency manipulator and claims that as a direct result of Abe’s currency policies, the market value of the Yen dropped by 35.3% between 2012 and 2014. In 2010 the Yen was undervalued by around 14% and Scott (2010) further states that by massive periodic purchases of foreign assets by the Bank of Japan and the Government Pension Investment Fund, the government was able to prevent the Yen from adjusting accordingly. Foreign asset holding increased from 7.6% in 2000 to 30.9% in 2013. With $1.2 trillion, Japan is also the second largest holder of foreign-exchange reserves (Bergsten and Gagnon 2012: 6). Gagnon lists Japan as a definitive currency manipulator in his research (2012: 7; 2013: 6) The account surplus was estimated to be 3.2% of GDP, reflecting a strong net foreign income (USDoT 2015: 21). Simon Preisley in a report for Bloomberg sees the yen as being undervalued by about 37.9% against the dollar (Preisley 2016).

Korea

South Korea has once, along with China and Taiwan, been branded as a currency manipulator under the 1988 Omnibus Foreign Trade and Competitiveness Act. At the time, the U.S. treasury found evidence of “excessive restrictions on foreign exchange mark ets and capital controls”, exacerbated by “heavy direct intervention in foreign exchange markets” (Yager 2005: 14). Allegations of currency manipulation resurfaced in the early 2000s, as Korea was heavily invested in U.S. treasury securities, being the seventh largest holder at $66.5 billion. South Korea intervened by purchasing U.S. dollar assets to lower the value of the Won. Recently the topic of Korean currency manipulation is at the forefront of international trade talks again. Marcus Noland, a senior research fellow at the East-West Center, affirmed that Korea is currently at the top of the U.S. treasury’s list of potential manipulators (Kim 2016). The U.S. Department of the Treasury (USDoT 2015: 22) has stated in its report, that Won depreciation and the real, trade-weighted basis diverged in 2014 and again in the following year through September, when it depreciated 7.7% against the dollar and 2.2% on a real, trade-weighted basis. In a 2014 assessment by the International Monetary Fund, the won was said to be undervalued by 5-13% and the account surplus was to be 8% of GDP, which both point to an undervaluation of the currency (USDoT 2015: 24).

....

Economists have nevertheless been critical of Japan and South Korea, claiming they have been artificially devaluing their currency against the U.S. dollar. According to Scott (2015) the value of the Yen dropped by 35.3% against the U.S. dollar from 2012 to 2014 and U.S: Department of the Treasury (2015) claimed also varying degrees of undervaluation. Simon Preisley of Bloomberg (2016) cites the undervaluation to be around 38%. While Korea is currently on the list of possible manipulators of the U.S. treasury, the devaluation of the one appears to be less severe than of Japan, as the IMF sees the percentage to be between 5-13%.

Trump's claim currency manipulators are just repeating U.S: Department of the Treasury's concerns. US President either actions U.S: Department of the Treasury's concerns or "do nothing".

So 1300 jobs go to Mexico, and Indiana is paying seven million to keep 800 in the state. I'm trying to be objective about this, but I'm having difficulty. That said how much tax revenue will those 800 workers bring in to the state compared to the seven million dollars being spent to keep them here? That's what it really comes down to right? Paid 7 million over ten years and it brought in how much more money for the state/country?

What's bothering me is we are paying a company 7 million dollars despite the fact that they're sending 1300 jobs to Mexico. I'm also wondering how many more companies will threaten to send jobs overseas in an effort to get tax breaks. I mean it's one thing if we talk them out entirely of sending jobs overseas and give them breaks for that as opposed to a compromise where they get tax breaks despite sending more than half the jobs overseas.

Are we arguing that job's are going to Japan because they're a currency manipulator? Last I heard, they were struggling to emerge from a lost decade themselves - I haven't heard of jobs pouring over to that country. And if we label them a currency manipulator, what separates the US from the same title?

Please explain how the company is getting "paid".

@jointed: Tax breaks amount to less revenue for the state, and more money than the company would otherwise get. That same money could be used for schools, police, fireman (who's benefits are going way down in Indiana as of this year), etc. Instead it's going to Carrier which will be pocketing that money. If you suddenly didn't have taxes taken out of your paycheck and your bank account went up would you really not consider it getting paid more? Or at least effectively so?

You'd have more money yes. But phrasing it as if the government is "paying" the company means that in theory the government owns 100 % of the company's profits and that the government is simply allowing the company to keep some arbitrary percentage.

Anyways, the jobs kept in the US are worth more than a monetary figure. It's about individual pride and community cohesion. The effect of unemployment on communities is something that can't be overestimated.

It is a little funny that Republicans went apocalyptic over a loan to GM (which was paid back with interest) to save over a million jobs, but are perfectly OK with a special tax break to save a thousand jobs.

800ish to be more exact, and didn't they still ship most of the intended 2000 jobs over seas?

Yep, 1,200 jobs are still being shipped to Mexico. Carrier played Trump like a fool. They get $7 million and still get to ship jobs overseas (well Mexico in this case).

@jointed: a portion of a company's revenue does in fact belong to the state as part of the cost of doing business. Letting them keep that portion is akin to paying the company.

What is this cost you are talking about and what justifies it?

The cost comes from taking advantage of a state's infrastructure in it's various forms. Roads, bridges, schools, police, firemen etc. Without those things you wouldn't be doing business in the state because there wouldn't be people living there to do the work in the first place.

That logic only works if the future tax rate for the company doesn't correspond to the "cost of doing business"...which is extremely unlikely.

Yes it's true that poor spending habit by politicians in Indiana, especially in Indiana, often leads to the tax revenue going towards less important things while important items get ignored or defunded. That said the rules are the rules, and taxes count as a portion of the cost of operating in the state. Same goes for the country for that matter.

So apparently Trump has investments with Carrier's parent company, United Technologies, and as a result has allegedly personally benefited from using public taxpayer's money (about $7 million dollars) to get Carrier to stay in the US. I don't know about you guys, but I had enough of that nonsense with the bank and auto manufacturer bailouts...

Link to article

The key points:

• Trump profited from this move while using both his position as a public figure and public funds
• While a relatively small "incentive" to encourage a company to stay at "only" 7 million dollars, the president-elect is not even president yet and is not only lying to us about his methods, but also about his intentions
• In addition, less than half the jobs were saved; the majority of the original 2100 jobs slated to be cut were still lost by American workers.

WSJ says Trump has as much as 250,000 dollars invested in United Technologies

Now, to be completely fair, the Trump defense is saying that he sold that asset a month ago, but given the man's track record of lying, and his refusal to provide documentation, I don't think anyone should believe this until proven true.

Not really off to a good start with his domestic plans; not only did he lie about the Ford deal, but his Carrier deal was half-assed (as far as saving jobs goes) and might even be corrupt. Is this what we have to look forward to for the next four years?

Rustbelt voters' priority are about creating and saving jobs. Trump already stated He has multiple investments during the election campaign. Trump is still technically a private citizen i.e. Trump is not-yet the President of USA. Trump needs to fix his personal business before January 20, 2017.

@ronvalencia: right, but you't think the corruption and overall failure of losing the jobs would piss them off like it would any pragmatic person. I guess jobs are jobs, though, yeah?

I mean you want to be an optimist and say he saved 800 jobs, or do you want to be a realist and say he used our money buy 800 jobs and lose 1200 for 7 million dollars?

Meanwhile the Democrat leading the country has added ~150k new jobs in September, dropped unemployment to 4.9%, and has increased wages across the board in general....but hey, **** him right? Let's talk about Trump...

You are repeating the same mistakes as the current progressive establishment i.e. Rustbelt states are being ignored.

USA's unemployed definition is a joke. To be in unemployed category, the person has to be actively looking for work within the 4 week time cycle. If long term unemployed person gives up, they will not be placed in the unemployed category.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed

People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:

• Contacting:
  • An employer directly or having a job interview
  • A public or private employment agency
  • Friends or relatives
  • A school or university employment center
• Submitting resumes or filling out applications
• Placing or answering job advertisements
• Checking union or professional registers
• Some other means of active job search

Passive methods of job search do not have the potential to connect job seekers with potential employers and therefore do not qualify as active job search methods. Examples of passive methods include attending a job training program or course, or merely reading about job openings that are posted in newspapers or on the Internet.

Workers expecting to be recalled from temporary layoff are counted as unemployed whether or not they have engaged in a specific job seeking activity. In all other cases, the individual must have been engaged in at least one active job search activity in the 4 weeks preceding the interview and be available for work (except for temporary illness).

The questions used in the interviews are carefully designed to obtain the most accurate picture of each person's labor force activities. Some of the major questions that determine employment status are as follows (the bolded words are emphasized when read by the interviewers).

1. 1. Does anyone in this household have a business or a farm?

1. 1. Last week, did you do any work for (either) pay (or profit)?
      If the answer to question 1 is "yes" and the answer to question 2 is "no," the next question is:

1. 1. Last week, did you do any unpaid work in the family business or farm?
      For those who reply "no" to both questions 2 and 3, the next key questions used to determine employment status are:

1. 1. Last week, (in addition to the business) did you have a job, either full or part time? Include any job from which you were temporarily absent.

1. 1. Last week, were you on layoff from a job?

1. 1. What was the main reason you were absent from work last week?
      For those who respond "yes" to question 5 about being on layoff, the following questions are asked:

1. 1. Has your employer given you a date to return to work?
      If "no," the next question is:

1. 1. Have you been given any indication that you will be recalled to work within the next 6 months?
      If the responses to either question 7 or 8 indicate that the person expects to be recalled from layoff, he or she is counted as unemployed. For those who were reported as having no job or business from which they were absent or on layoff, the next question is:

1. 1. Have you been doing anything to find work during the last 4 weeks?
      For those who say "yes," the next question is:

1. 1. What are all of the things you have done to find work during the last 4 weeks?
      If an active method of looking for work, such as those listed at the beginning of this section, is mentioned, the following question is asked:

1. Last week, could you have started a job if one had been offered?
   If there is no reason, except temporary illness, that the person could not take a job, he or she is considered to be not only looking but also available for work and is counted as unemployed.

Some fictional examples of typical responses that may result in a person being classified as unemployed are:

1. 1. Yvonne reported that 2 weeks ago she applied for jobs at a bank and at a mortgage lending company. She currently is waiting to hear back from both businesses. Yvonne is unemployed because she made a specific effort to find a job within the prior 4 weeks and is presently available for work.

1. 1. Ms. Jenkins tells the interviewer that her teenage daughter, Katherine Marie, was thinking about looking for work in the prior 4 weeks but knows of no specific efforts she has made. Katherine Marie does not meet the activity test for unemployment and is, therefore, counted as not in the labor force.

1. 1. John has been checking for openings at a local warehouse store for each of the past 3 weeks, but last week he had the flu and was unavailable for work because of it. John is counted as unemployed because he took steps to look for work and would have been available for work during the survey reference week, except for his temporary illness.

1. 1. Marcus was laid off from the local plant of a major automaker when the firm began retooling to produce a new model car. Marcus knows he will be called back to work as soon as the model changeover is completed, and he also knows it is unlikely that he would be able to find a job for the period he is laid off; so, although he is available to work, he is not seeking a job. Marcus is unemployed because he is waiting to be recalled from layoff.

1. Julia told the interviewer that she has submitted applications with three companies for summer jobs. However, it is only April and she doesn't wish to start work until at least June 15, because she is attending school. Although she has taken specific steps to find a job, Julia is classified as not in the labor force because she is not currently available for work. (She could not have started a job if one had been offered.) Students are treated the same as other persons; that is, they are classified as employed or unemployed if they meet the criteria, whether they are in school on a full- or part-time basis.

The total unemployment figures cover more than the number of people who have lost jobs. They include people who have quit their jobs to look for other employment, workers whose temporary jobs have ended, individuals looking for their first job, and experienced workers looking for jobs after an absence from the labor force (for example, stay-at-home parents who return to the labor force after their children have entered school). Information also is collected for the unemployed on the industry and occupation of the last job they held (if applicable), how long they have been looking for work, their reason for being jobless (for example, did they lose or quit their job), and their job search methods.

@ronvalencia: Hell just frozed over when Chunky Ogre (Cenk Uygur) praised Trump on bringing those jobs back to the US, and calls Obama "weak"

Weird that people dont care about backhanded bribery once their man gets in. Somehow its okay now. Take a financial hit in order to not incur the wrath of the incoming administration while the president can yell off the mountaintop that he did some huge deal.

@ronvalencia: So you're saying the unemployment numbers are inflated, deflated, or just inaccurate?

@mrbojangles25: He jumped on pay to play quick. Lying weasel.

@ronvalencia is completely fucking annihilating you guys in this thread.

ronvalencia could be talking about blue unicorns eating trash, and I would not be able to tell the difference between that and anything else. When Cenk Uygur quits going "dwaaaawaaah religion" and praises Trump, I dont know what the shit is going on. The reasoning of his posts in this thread looks sound, however.

@hillelslovak: Sometimes I don't even understand what he posts in SW and the PC Hardware forums, he's very technical, and I'm not saying it's a bad thing

I'm for first creating and saving jobs in USA. USA's consumers has to be kept strong so it can continue to consume products and services from the rest of the world. The rustbelt states should not be left behind i.e. anger and desperation in these rustbelt states has to be reduced. "The establishment" from both red and blue camps didn't see the rustbelt states' anger and desperation.

I see debaters uses per capita GDP and it shows they didn't learn the lessons from this year's 2016 election.

US's trade deficit with China is not sustainable. If China is serious with world's and it's own economic stability, it should work with USA towards a sustainable trade balance.

A significant population size with anger + desperation + nuclear weapons are very bad mix.

Btw, Michael Moore renames "rustbelt" states as US's "Brexit states".

I was not insulting you. I was just speaking to the point that when Cenk Uygur starts slopping on Trump's balls, the world is insane, and I have no idea what is going on. Michael Moore. God, cringe. What an opportunist slug. He keeps moving further from being an exceptionally ugly man, to a world questioningly ugly lesbian woman. I gave up on him when I saw Sicko, seeing him talk about how Cuba had a better healthcare system than we did. And then I did research on their medical standards, independent critiques from within Cuba etc, and saw that he was pimping out 9/11 first responders whilst making Cuba look great in order to score some cash and some anti bush points. Nothing says you are a piece of shit more than praising a despotic communist regime to make your democratically elected president, albeit an exceptionally shitty one, look bad.

If a person looks for a job for every 4.1 week cycle, they wouldn't be in the unemployment category.

Cuba's health care is inferior to "nanny states" such as Australia, NZ, Norway, Sweden and 'etc'.

When compared to USA, nanny states such as Australia and NZ has better health care without blowing up their government debts. The main idea is to keep hospital's running cost low e.g. different patent system and experiment data exclusivity conditions that are friendly for open competition.

In TPP, Australia + it's Asian supporters single out US's patent system and experiment data exclusivity conditions as a killer to their universal health care and health cost.

Does anyone in the US's establishment has the courage to change patent system and experiment data exclusivity conditions for real open competition?

Has Dems single out "US's patent system and experiment data exclusivity conditions" as the killer to the universal health care and health cost like Australia's main argument? Who has the courage to make patent system and experiment data exclusivity conditions for real open competition?

@ronvalencia: Wouldn't that mean they would capture that every other interview? Essentially saying that every other 4 week period would accurately reflect this individual's employment status?

Trump supporters don't give a ****. It's so sad how American politics has essentially devolved into tribalism akin to sports fandom.

National government's main focus should be host country not other foreign countries.

http://www.voanews.com/a/trump-issues-new-warning-to-us-corporations-moving-jobs-overseas/3622375.html

Trump Uses a Strong Arm and Sweet Deals to Negotiate for Jobs

The Trump Organization's "Made In Mexico" signature collection will be affected by Donald Trump's new trade policies.

It would be interesting see a conflict between Donald Trump vs Ivanka Trump.

Ivanka Trump already has a difference position with climate change from Donald Trump.

What are you talking about.

@mattbbpl said:

It is a little funny that Republicans went apocalyptic over a loan to GM (which was paid back with interest) to save over a million jobs, but are perfectly OK with a special tax break to save a thousand jobs.

Auto-manufacturing bailouts are for company wide which doesn't specifically target U.S. manufacturing jobs i.e. bailouts also benefits foreign operations. The bailouts are loans given by the government.

Auto-manufacturer's bailout without structural changes are pointless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_crisis_of_2008%E2%80%9310

The automotive industry was weakened by a substantial increase in the prices of automotive fuels^[2] linked to the 2003-2008 energy crisis which discouraged purchases of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and pickup trucks which have low fuel economy.^[3] The popularity and relatively high profit margins of these vehicles had encouraged the American "Big Three" automakers, General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler to make them their primary focus. With fewer fuel-efficient models to offer to consumers, sales began to slide. By 2008, the situation had turned critical as the credit crunch^[4] placed pressure on the prices of raw materials.

Car companies from Asia, Europe, North America, and elsewhere have implemented creative marketing strategies to entice reluctant consumers as most experienced double-digit percentage declines in sales. Major manufacturers, including the Big Three and Toyota offered substantial discounts across their lineups. The Big Three faced criticism for their lineups, which were seen to be irresponsible in light of rising fuel prices. North American consumers turned to smaller, cheaper, more fuel-efficient imports from Japan and Europe.^[5]

Most of his posts are bizarre links and replies that have nothing to do with the post he's quoted. I've frankly given up on trying to decipher anything ronvalencia says.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

In all other cases, the individual must have been engaged in at least one active job search activity in the 4 weeks preceding the interview and be available for work (except for temporary illness).

The individual must have been engaged in at least one active job search activity in the 4 weeks before a successful job interview.

4 week interval is set by a successful job interview.

Read the public policy from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

I quote

In all other cases, the individual must have been engaged in at least one active job search activity in the 4 weeks preceding the interview and be available for work (except for temporary illness).

The individual must have been engaged in at least one active job search activity in the 4 weeks before a successful job interview.

4 week interval is set by a successful job interview. Outside this parameter, the individual would not be counted as unemployed e.g. long term unemployed who gave up.

Those reforms you cite were made, and the bailout saved 1.5 million US jobs.

@ronvalencia: Nope you're wrong. You are counted as unemployment if you are unemployed. You are REQUIRED to go on job interviews though and be at least by appearances looking for work.

Going on a job interview does NOT make you employed. Seriously dude.

US still has one of the highest corporate tax rate in OECD group.

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE_II1

Germany's corporate income tax rate is 15.83 percent.

Nope, you're wrong. Your "Going on a job interview does NOT make you employed" statement is f*cking wrong. LOL

Again, read the public policy from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

Under Who is counted as unemployed? question. I quote

Who is counted as unemployed?

...(cut for space)

In all other cases, the individual must have been engaged in at least one active job search activity in the 4 weeks preceding the interview and be available for work (except for temporary illness).

The individual must have been engaged in at least one active job search activity in the 4 weeks before a successful job interview.

4 week interval is set by a successful job interview. Outside this parameter, the individual would not be counted as unemployed e.g. long term unemployed who gave up.

You missed 4 weeks threshold per job interview to be in unemployment category.

I see the problem. You don't understand what you read. That says exactly what I said.

Your "Going on a job interview does NOT make you employed." is bullshit. You didn't read my post.

You missed 4 weeks threshold per job interview.

@ronvalencia: Like I said you don't understand what you're reading.

Like I said you don't understand what you're reading.

Your "Going on a job interview does NOT make you employed." is bullshit. I did not claim this.

If you throw a dozen random links around and hopelessly turn each post into another rabbit chase tangent, then it helps distract from the original point. 3rd grade debate tactics.

LJS9502_basic's "Going on a job interview does NOT make you employed." is bullshit. I did not claim this. Try again clown.

@mattbbpl said:

@ronvalencia said:

@mattbbpl said:

@ronvalencia said:

@mattbbpl said:

It is a little funny that Republicans went apocalyptic over a loan to GM (which was paid back with interest) to save over a million jobs, but are perfectly OK with a special tax break to save a thousand jobs.

Auto-manufacturing bailouts are for company wide which doesn't specifically target U.S. manufacturing jobs i.e. bailouts also benefits foreign operations. The bailouts are loans given by the government.

Auto-manufacturer's bailout without structural changes are pointless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_industry_crisis_of_2008%E2%80%9310

The automotive industry was weakened by a substantial increase in the prices of automotive fuels^[2] linked to the 2003-2008 energy crisis which discouraged purchases of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and pickup trucks which have low fuel economy.^[3] The popularity and relatively high profit margins of these vehicles had encouraged the American "Big Three" automakers, General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler to make them their primary focus. With fewer fuel-efficient models to offer to consumers, sales began to slide. By 2008, the situation had turned critical as the credit crunch^[4] placed pressure on the prices of raw materials.

Car companies from Asia, Europe, North America, and elsewhere have implemented creative marketing strategies to entice reluctant consumers as most experienced double-digit percentage declines in sales. Major manufacturers, including the Big Three and Toyota offered substantial discounts across their lineups. The Big Three faced criticism for their lineups, which were seen to be irresponsible in light of rising fuel prices. North American consumers turned to smaller, cheaper, more fuel-efficient imports from Japan and Europe.^[5]

Those reforms you cite were made, and the bailout saved 1.5 million US jobs.

US still has one of the highest corporate tax rate in OECD group.

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE_II1

Germany's corporate income tax rate is 15.83 percent.

Trump plans to increase import transport tax. The tax is not applied against imported goods.

Trump wants to decrease corporate tax while increase import transport tax.

The tax is not applied against imported goods hence a potential workaround for WTO rules.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-flips-the-script-on-jobs-reshoring-finally-outpaced-offshoring-in-2014-2015-05-01

In year 2014, "Record number of manufacturing jobs returning to America" due to import transport cost (thank you OPEC). The key idea is playing with the transport cost....

Trump is focusing on increasing import transport tax and more shale oil to magnify the current conditions hence accelerating the manufacturing jobs returning to America.

Trump's approach is already half exist under Obama, but needs to be exploited.

Hillary's election managers needs to be fired i.e. their focus on making Trump unelectable reduced sending the message on a plan to bring back manufacturing jobs. Obama blames Hillary for f**king-up her election chance. Trump trolled Hillary's election managers so they focus on Trump instead of Obama's results.

@ronvalencia said:

@mattbbpl said:

@ronvalencia said:

@mattbbpl said:

Those reforms you cite were made, and the bailout saved 1.5 million US jobs.

US still has one of the highest corporate tax rate in OECD group.

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE_II1

Germany's corporate income tax rate is 15.83 percent.

Trump plans to increase import transport tax. The tax is not applied against imported goods.

Trump wants to decrease corporate tax while increase import transport tax.

Loading Video...

The tax is not applied against imported goods hence a potential workaround for WTO rules.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-flips-the-script-on-jobs-reshoring-finally-outpaced-offshoring-in-2014-2015-05-01

In year 2014, "Record number of manufacturing jobs returning to America" due to import transport cost (thank you OPEC). The key idea is playing with the transport cost....

Trump is focusing on increasing import transport tax and more shale oil to magnify the current conditions hence accelerating the manufacturing jobs returning to America.

Trump's approach is already half exist under Obama, but needs to be exploited.

Hillary's election managers needs to be fired i.e. their focus on making Trump unelectable reduced sending the message on a plan to bring back manufacturing jobs. Obama blames Hillary for f**king-up her election chance. Trump trolled Hillary's election managers so they focus on Trump instead of Obama's results.

Are you just going to throw straw man around from this point on, or are you actually planning on addressing my response at some point?