Thanks. This is an example of why the most hopeful among my nervous-nelly circle of friends thinks business arguments will prevail on Trump in the end. It is pretty clear manufacturers at the level of big auto do not like dealing with a variety of different state regulations. The California waver on emissions has become, in effect, a national standard so probably should be protected as well.
Trump is a developer and TV personality by background with international expertise and in the latter, mostly about branding issues. I doubt he has any formal background in international economics nor close friends who influence him in a nuanced direction on such matters. Not having the baggage of an in-depth policy platform before entering politics, like the more traditional candidates—especially Clinton—he has not explored the implications of his campaign promises. The idea of a specific tax on Mexican imports illustrates my point. Aside from tangling with the World Trade Organization and NAFTA, which may have other positive attributes than he anticipated, there is the likely retaliation by Mexico. Eventually even consumers might wake up to the fact as to why prices have risen.
I'm not a tax maven, of course, but many here are and I would like discussion of the Republican proposal already in Congress to have a unified policy on all imports. Admittedly most of my sources have the potential for progressive bias, but I've read the Reeps are proposing something similar to most other countries. Is it like a value added tax? Or is that a separate issue?
On the job creation angle as well as wealth inequality, I suspect the problems are due to our tax structure. It makes no sense having a tax code which favors job creation overseas by manufacturers. That made sense when we wanted to spread the imperialistic benefits of the Liberal International Economic Order, but that is now a fait accompli with possibly the only exception being North Korea (apologies, I mean its Peoples' Republic of). On wealth inequality we might see movement on the clear advantages given to fund managers, carried interest. Though he's protected by the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, it is unlikely Trump would be open to eliminating the loss carried forward of nearly a billion dollars which came about because of bankruptcies where he had already drained the companies of cash, . (Sometimes there are examples of billionaire turncoats as illustrated by Roosevelt's appointment of Joe Kennedy to head the SEC.)
Just as Ford and companies would like to have a uniform set of laws the real problem of international tax law is probably lack of uniformity among nations. It might be nice to have a uniform tax law for multinational companies across the world thus clearing up the problem of stranded profits. I also abhor the competition by states and cities/counties for investment under domestic law. Even at the termite level we see undue competition for tax benefits.
It just seems to me one should not seek jobs or make investments based on tax considerations. That's kind of a trader's game irrelevant to the matter of real resource allocation like jobs, where located, efficiency, and true costs. Governments should get out of that game. They'll never match the innovation of financial entrepreneurs, or is the phrase an oxymoron?
Buffet has already said this more elegantly and with a bit more authority.
