"when the executive uses force to accomplish his agenda"
The past 15 years are a good sample case.

Trumps plan to add import fees to products of American companies who manufacture outside of America will only hurt consumers. It's not like these companies will just "absorb" the fees and not pass them on. It won't change anything for these companies. He needs to "entice" them back, not penalize them.

I'd be more likely to trust you instead of HRM Donnie. He can't rig the game on the world market the way he has used looteromics for personal gain.

Trump has had great success saying things others won't, even if they are outrageous. He will eventually stop the bellicosity, but not now.

Another flaw in Trump's plan exposed.
Thanks for posting,Harmon.
Have you had any similar frustrating experiences in your ventures that you can share?

They have a robot technology, but perhaps not the most advanced tech (e.g.,that is now being patented in a foreign country with patent laws that don't publish and give away the design.)
I do get your point about more fedgov costs being imposed and wrecking the competitive capability. No doubt this will be done unless the people throw off the chains of "security" and embrace the riches of liberty.

freedomforallI, I respect your opinion.
Do you think the same holds true for Ted Cruz?
I'm thinking of candidates with a chance of winning here.

Influence and force are quite different. Presidents have used their bully pulpit many times to no avail, though it does work at times. The use of force, however, is improper, illegal and fattening. The end of a Democratic Republic can be seen when the executive uses force to accomplish his agenda.

I think the Donald understands incentive. The world responds to incentive. That is the underlying cause of corporate inversion. Change the corp tax rate and around the world CEOs will look for the best place to locate and many will choose USA. And, if we are a tax haven, trillions of French, German, and Asian dollars will remain here (working) just as they remain off shore now. The travesty is a government that takes it's share of the profits regardless of the worldwide realities. They want fair trade and open markets, but forget in a world market capital seeks ROI. To that end, higher taxes make ROI more difficult to achieve. The result is not only corporate inversion but venture capital also goes off shore, stunting the growth of "the next big thing" here in America. The next big thing will seek and find venture capital where it is, off shore. That's makes our government 1st in line for the "shot myself in the foot" award. Many people have accused me of being racist for the way I object to Obamanomics. It is not a race thing, I would love to debate the big 0 on growth, economics, opportunity, and results. I did not go to Haavaard. I went to work at an early age. I studied poverty in a personal way, didn't want a hand out, just a career with a ladder to climb.

William ... it may be more than just labor costs, see my post below about how "nimble" the Chinese were to accommodate Jobs' last minute request to change the IPhone screen from plastic to glass. Thx.

Term2 ... see my post below about how nimble the Chinese were to accommodate Jobs' last minute request to change the screen of the Iphone from plastic to glass.

From the article at the link below:
"Charles Duhigg and Keith Bradsher of the New York Times have written an excellent article about why Apple makes iPhones and iPads in China instead of the United States.

One of the key points is this: Chinese factories are far more nimble than American factories.

The story Duhigg and Bradsher used to illustrate this will only add to the iPhone lore.

Just over a month before the first iPhone was to be released in 2007, the authors report, a frustrated Steve Jobs summoned his senior team.

Steve had been using a prototype iPhone for a few weeks, carrying it around in his pocket. When his lieutenants were assembled, he pulled the prototype out of his pocket and pointed angrily to dozens of scratches on its plastic screen.

People would carry their phones in their pockets, Steve said. They would also carry other things in their pockets--like keys. And those things would scratch the screen.

And then, with Apple just about to ramp up iPhone production, Steve demanded that the iPhone's screen be replaced with unscratchable glass.

“I want a glass screen," Steve is quoted as saying. "And I want it perfect in six weeks.”

The glass itself would come from Corning, an American company. But the only way for Apple to meet Steve's deadline would be to find an empty glass-cutting factory, a huge amount of glass to experiment on, and a team of mid-level engineers to figure out how to cut the glass into millions of screens.

An executive at the meeting knew that the only place Apple might be able to find these things would be in China. So he flew to Shenzhen, where a bid for the work quickly arrived from a Chinese company.

Before they even won Apple's business, the Chinese company started building a new factory building in which to cut the glass. (The Chinese government was providing subsidies, and the company took advantage of them--"just in case.") The company provided Apple with a team of cheap engineers, as well as spare glass for Apple to experiment with, the latter for free. The company's engineers were housed in dormitories, so they were available to Apple 24 hours a day.

Apple hired the company to cut the hardened glass for the screens, and after a month of experimentation, the engineers figured out how to do it. They quickly sent the first shipment of screens to Foxconn's assembly plant in Shenzhen, where they arrived in the middle of the night. Foxconn's managers woke up thousands of workers and immediately began assembling iPhones.

Three months later, Apple had sold 1 million iPhones. Four years later, Apple has sold ~200 million of them.

As the Apple executives who spoke to Duhigg and Bradsher for their article make clear, there is no way American manufacturing companies could have met this timetable.

The end-to-end process of building the iPhones, Duhigg and Bradsher report, required 8,700 mid-level engineers. In the United States, Apple estimated, it would have taken 9 months to hire this many engineers. In China, it took 15 days."

http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-...

they already have that technology. When I watch "How it's Made" on the science channel it amazing how much is made by both traditional machine and robot. If a craftsman or tradesman has a "hands on" job it is a rare thing. For me the real worry would be a productivity tax on robot manufacturing. Something to replace or rebuild the revenue stream from declining FICA payroll taxes. A tax like this would be added to the cost the consumer pays just like another expense. That creates a distortion in the market that once again makes it better off shore. The solution seems to be for governments to understand they are not entitled to "their fair share" of the profits. They grab their fair share and we all suffer at the cash register, which is of course robotic, because today's kids can't count back your change!

Trump will pick people the way the GOP picks people, with loyalty being the highest priority and unethical behavior being a positive quality.
I don't doubt Trump CAN hire good people, but he will direct them to do what increases Trump's power, just as politicians have done for generations. Trump is no different in that respect.

Assuming a president doesn't give the technology for our robots to China.

Well, Donnie has the bully part, and he would certainly use the IRS, EPS, Treasury, FDA, BATF, FBI, etc etc to wreck anyone who opposes him. Constitution? Just a Galt Damned piece of paper.
Donnie, perfect for Czar.
Unacceptable for America.

I may have said this elsewhere on this board, but while I was working and living in China (2006) I found a Harley costing $16.5k USD in Upstate NY cost $40k USD in Beijing. So much for "free trade" and you can't tell me it cost $23.5k to ship it over there (unless there's some boondoggle in the space time continuum that makes it possible to move mass from Asia to North America easier than the other way around). No doubt fixing this is part of what Trump has in mind.

Back in the mid '70s I sent a note to my congress critter that a single trade law that simply reflects another country's own rules back on them is all we needed. That is, whatever restrictions or tarrifs that country placed on any US goods would be placed on all theirs.

I recall Trump saying he will get good people with good minds together (paraphrasing) if he is elected president.
"--probably just a spokesman fro trump enterprises--" ??
I think you hit a nail on the head.

I think our robots would do as well as chinese robots. Apple devotees would gladly pay the few bucks extra US inspectors and packers would add to the cost. They already pay for handlers and packer at fulfillment centers. Maybe Apple would consolidate inspect/packing/fulfillment in the same facility.

He can apply pressure. If you follow the constitutional role, the Presidency is a bully pulpit that can be used to influence decisions -- or bring someone to the table to negotiate.

Trump cannot force Apple or Ford to do anything unless he plans a takeover. As a businessman, he should know that lowering their taxes and a welcoming environment will do more to encourage local manufacturing than all the coercive talk. Make it easy for business to make money and the nation will prosper. As to Mrs. Clinton, she doesn't seem to understand most of economics and Sanders obviously understands nothing about hardly anything.

They will move production of USA-bound product to the USA when the employee restrictions and regulations are reduced here, AND they can complete automation and robotization of their production lines.

You have absorbed a much higher level of Donnie propaganda than is safe for your health (grin)

Carburetor? Is that a new arm twisting legal term created by the EPA?