Trump prefers China to the US

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by samcraig, Oct 4, 2016.

  1. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #1
    http://www.newsweek.com/how-donald-trump-ditched-us-steel-workers-china-505717

    Plenty of blue-collar workers believe that, as president, Donald Trump would be ready to fight off U.S. trade adversaries and reinvigorate the country’s manufacturing industries through his commitment to the Rust Belt. What they likely don’t know is that Trump has been stiffing American steel workers on his own construction projects for years, choosing to deprive untold millions of dollars from four key electoral swing states and instead directing it to China—the country whose trade practices have helped decimate the once-powerful industrial center of the United States.
     
  2. Jal217 macrumors regular

    Jal217

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    #2
    So as an owner of a company he should pay more for steel and take a worse deal so that American steel companies do better?

    That's called a poor business decision. As a CEO your job is to ensure the greatest financial success of your company as possible. It is your legal obligation, but more importantly, it is the foundation of a capitalism to make the most profitable decision possible.

    As president, your job is to encourage CEOs like trump to spend their money here rather than in China. This is done by passing laws that make it financially responsible for a CEO to do so. It is not done by expecting for profit organizations to pay more for a product just because it's made here.

    Trump was a CEO when making these decisions. So obviously if he was a good one, he'd choose to spend money on Chinese products if they cost less. As a president he would have to come up with laws that would encourage that financial decision by CEOs to go the other way.
     
  3. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #3
    Okay, who should people vote for?

    Everyone loves to talk about the issues the other candidates are for, but the cynicism is becoming tiresome. Positive ideas are needed instead. Which candidates are for those and for working with Americans instead of encouraging them to get educated in degrees that are or will be eliminated?
     
  4. samcraig thread starter macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #4
    As someone running for President - he comes off as a hypocrite. I don't disagree with what you wrote. But he is a contributor to the very issue he's condemning in his campaign - and putting the blame elsewhere. This furthers the idea that Trump may have huge conflicts of interest if he becomes POTUS when it comes to running the country and his own Brand.
     
  5. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #5
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/hillary-clintons-china-problem-15763
    http://abcnews.go.com/International...onaire-tied-clinton-scandal/story?id=33990683
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy
    it's ok when democrats do it.
     
  6. samcraig thread starter macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
  7. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #7
    yeah, she is so different from her hubby :rolleyes:
    she has supported everything Bill has done up until the minute she was against it.
     
  8. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #8
    From the OP's article ...
    So you are incorrect to state it was Trump's legal obligation to make the most profit possible.
     
  9. samcraig thread starter macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #9
    She's a politician. But once again someone goes right to "but but but Hillary."

    This thread is about Trump's hypocrisy of talking about "losing" to China and being one of the very reasons that is the case. And as previously pointed out - he owes nothing to stockholders.
     
  10. Jal217 macrumors regular

    Jal217

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    #10
    It's not hypocritical. He is not saying companies shouldn't do it for moral reasons. He is saying our government hasn't done anything to stop it. He is saying that as president he would try to do things to stop it. He isn't saying once I'm president everyone should just stop doing it out of morality because I ask them to.

    As for the issue of the conflict of interests. I do see that point but he plans to step down as CEO. This obviously won't change the fact that he has an emotional and financial stake in the company. However, I think it's unfair to call into question that conflict of interests when for the past 250 years we've had business people in office. In fact it used to be that public office was never a primary job, including in our congress. One could also argue there was less corruption then than now. So is owning a company a conflict of interests? Maybe, but is it the largest source of curruption? I don't think so. That's up to everyone to make their own decision on though.

    I just hope people think about it a little before assuming he's just a currupt hypocrite. Maybe he is, but maybe he's not. I hope people take their time in coming to these conclusions.
     
  11. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #11
    they are BOTH hypocrites :D
     
  12. samcraig thread starter macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #12
    On your first point - who said anything about morals. Certainly not me. He's condemning a system he's "taking advantage of" - much like his tax deductions.

    On the second point - you're not seriously thinking that just because he temporarily steps down as CEO that he's going to magically create a wall between him, his interests and the country are you? There hasn't been a President in office like Trump.

    As for thinking - corruption is only one of the issues I have with him. To me, he is the least presidential candidate we have ever had. On so many levels.
     
  13. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #13
  14. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    Are you arguing that? Or are you just saying that someone could potentially argue that.

    Couldn't someone potentially argue anything?
     
  15. samcraig thread starter macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #15
    Many people are saying that anything could be argued when many people are saying there could be less corruption.
     
  16. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #16
    And if a company can't afford to pay its workers decent wages, should it be in business? It's a moot point, I suspect the supply side paradigm will still collapse due to how one-sided it's become, which isn't slanted in favor of the demand-side. I'd like to say that's what Dems and Repubs mean by "let them fail" but if all they say is "let them fail" and no plans for a new system to be put in, isn't that weird?
     
  17. aaronvan, Oct 4, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2016

    aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #17
    True, and as the American president your job should be to force U.S. companies to buy American steel from American steel companies through tariffs, taxes, or the law.

    Even Ronald Reagan, the Patron Saint of Conservatives, slapped a big tariff on Japanese motorcycles which saved Harley-Davidson.

    Unfortunately, what we have is a series of globalist presidents exporting U.S. jobs and importing foreign workers at the behest of Wall Street and multinational corporations, and who don't give a flying f**k about U.S. workers. It will not improve under Hillary. 2020 will be interesting.
     
  18. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #18
    I thought I had already trademarked that for my campaign... watch yourself!
     
  19. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #19
    Can we simply be done with it and airdrop Trump on Beijing? In the PRC's bubble he'd work wonders.
     
  20. Raid, Oct 4, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2016

    Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #20
    It is not a legal obligation by any means, however you are correct about capitalism.

    Unfortunately he's not a law maker. A manipulator of rules? Certainly! A bender of rules ... maybe. A breaker of rules? ... Well Time did write a book about it.
     
  21. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #21

    That is what many of his supporters believe. That he will step in and make positive changes. And aren't some laws based on morality?
     
  22. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #22
    But ... Big government! :eek::D
    --- Post Merged, Oct 4, 2016 ---
    Some laws are based on morality, some laws are immoral.
     
  23. Jal217 macrumors regular

    Jal217

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    #23
    That is not true. Any CEO of a company that has a shareholder who is not a CEO is legally obligated to do what is in the "best interest" of the shareholders. This includes maximizing long term profits.
     
  24. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #24
    I'm not sure if this is semantics or general confusion but if you've got a source for that it would be interesting to read. While maximizing long term profits is the goal of every capitalist corporation, the only legal culpability a CEO has is for failure to uphold his responsibilities in adherence to regulations of both the government and board. Even then legal liability is hard to focus on CEOs as many "Wall Street" CEOs in the past 8 years would have been thrown in jail or sued extensively by shareholders.
     
  25. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #25
    From the OP's source and already posted once before in this thread ...
    Are you intentionally ignoring this point?
     

Share This Page