At least there are still a few consequential conservatives:
And Tylor Cowen isn't impressed either:
Quote:Trump boasted about his deal to keep about 1,100 Carrier jobs in Indiana, and also took aim at other companies who may be thinking about moving jobs out of the country. "Companies are not going to leave the United States anymore without consequences. Not going to happen. It's not going to happen, I'll tell you right now," Trump said on Thursday. Pethokoukis, a scholar with the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, called it the worst economic speech since Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale promised to reverse Reaganomics in 1984.Trump's Carrier speech 'absolutely chilling,' economic analyst says
"The idea that American corporations are going to have to make business decisions, not based on the fact that we've created an ideal environment for economic growth in the United States, but out of fear of punitive actions based on who knows what criteria exactly from a presidential administration. I think that's absolutely chilling," he said in an interview with CNBC's "Closing Bell."
And Tylor Cowen isn't impressed either:
Quote:One of Donald Trump’s most consistent campaign promises has been to prevent U.S. businesses from moving good jobs to Mexico -- whether through taxes, jawboning, or more drastic means, such as an outright prohibition. Economists might regard this as a misguided form of protectionism, but in fact, it’s worse than that: If instituted, it could prove a major step toward imposing capital controls on the American economy and politicizing many business decisions.Trump's Disastrous Pledge to Keep Jobs in the U.S. - Bloomberg View
Let’s consider how such a policy would be enforced in practice... The biggest irony of this whole Trump initiative is that it likely would lead to higher U.S. trade deficits. Economists stress the offsetting nature of trade flows and capital flows. As the accounting identities are constructed, a higher trade deficit corresponds to higher capital inflows, and a lower trade deficit corresponds to higher capital outflows. (To see the nature of these balanced transactions, imagine China selling goods and accumulating Treasury bills in return, a form of investment in this country.)
So a Trumpian plan to limit capital outflows, through whatever means, is also -- if only indirectly and without such intent -- a plan to boost the trade deficit. How’s that for making America great again? The laws of economics and politics have not yet been repealed.