The Affect of President Trump on Business

pedroeibar1

JohnMc1 wrote: »

This is why I'm giving him a chance. The Lawyers and Career Politician that never worked an Honest to God job have ruined our Countries. So let's see what a Business Man can do.

While I agree we have a surfeit of teachers with no business experience, Trump is a failed businessman who has made money out of bankruptcies - that is why Forbes and other reputable publications query his net worth claims. Take for example the Plaza in Midtown / CPS which he bought with a borrowed $450+million including renovation costs, he got the cash-flow and a very nice income out of it but his business model failed miserably, totally, so he did a Chapter 11 where his creditors took a huge write-down (50%??) and his own stake was heavily diluted – the hotel was sold a few years later for about $300 million. From north of $500 million to about $300 million in a few years is not success. Many other examples out there!

mrawkward

Mr Trump's economic adviser Stephen Moore has said a flood of US companies will leave Ireland. The US pharma sector has huge immovable plant infrastructure in place that would cost astronomical numbers to replicate in the US and then they would have to assemble the tech teams to run them. The Microsofts, Googles and FaceBooks have multi-lingual technical and EMEA support/localisation staff here, try finding them at double the money in California or anywhere on the West Coast USA, no chance. As for working in the Boonies USA, joke. Not to mention the liklihood of reprisal duty levies on such services being provided from the US to the EU and any other market the new adminstration might choose to errect trade barriers. Mutinationals are aptly named and they may pay lip service to governments but make the real commercial decision based on the almighty dollar. There will be the normal ebb and flow , the flow may well be less in the short term but it will normalise reasonably quickly.

His victory speech music was prescient " you cant always get what you want"

Digital_Guy

mrawkward wrote: »

Mr Trump's economic adviser Stephen Moore has said a flood of US companies will leave Ireland. The US pharma sector has huge immovable plant infrastructure in place that would cost astronomical numbers to replicate in the US and then they would have to assemble the tech teams to run them. The Microsofts, Googles and FaceBooks have multi-lingual technical and EMEA support/localisation staff here, try finding them at double the money in California or anywhere on the West Coast USA, no chance. As for working in the Boonies USA, joke. Not to mention the liklihood of reprisal duty levies on such services being provided from the US to the EU and any other market the new adminstration might choose to errect trade barriers. Mutinationals are aptly named and they may pay lip service to governments but make the real commercial decision based on the almighty dollar. There will be the normal ebb and flow , the flow may well be less in the short term but it will normalise reasonably quickly.

His victory speech music was prescient " you cant always get what you want"

And that's his economic advisor - makes you wonder if they nothing anything at all about business.

JohnMc1

Trump has every right to entice Companies originally created in America to return. Its up to the EU to entice those same Companies to stay in Europe.

Digital_Guy

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Trump has every right to entice Companies originally created in America to return. Its up to the EU to entice those same Companies to stay in Europe.

True, but realistically the likes of Google and other multinationals aren't going to just close up and move back to the US. More likely it will result in fewer US companies coming here, which clearly isn't good. That said it might make us focus more on creating more on indigenous businesses instead of relying so much on FDI.

JohnMc1

Digital_Guy wrote: »

True, but realistically the likes of Google and other multinationals aren't going to just close up and move back to the US. More likely it will result in fewer US companies coming here, which clearly isn't good. That said it might make us focus more on creating more on indigenous businesses instead of relying so much on FDI.

Most likely he's hoping to get them to restore their Corporate HQ status in the US. Not have them close up shop entirely in Europe. I'm sure he sees the benefits of companies that serve Europe and elsewhere having factories and regional headquarters there.

mrawkward

These MNCs do not have a geographic domicile.. it can be where suits them best. Trump and his gang are naive along with a few on here!!

Digital_Guy

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Most likely he's hoping to get them to restore their Corporate HQ status in the US. Not have them close up shop entirely in Europe. I'm sure he sees the benefits of companies that serve Europe and elsewhere having factories and regional headquarters there.

They don't have any HQ though, that's the thing.

maninasia

So many errors in this thread.
Us multinationals MOSTLY base in Ireand cos we are part of the EU so they run their revenue through here at a low tax rate.

The other stuff is extra cream on the pie that's all. So it's EU tax policy which will determine US investment in Ireland not Trump. The Americans still need to do business in Europe.

Some money might flow back from overseas accounts , some increased investment in US but don't see anything that will really change substantially current business situatjon in Ireland...thats all determined by the EU.

By the way , the USd is expected to get STRONGER not weaker!

petethedrummer

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Other posters and I have already mentioned infrastructure projects - but they need lots of cash, which is not available yet and will not become available until Trump gets his corporate tax deal through Congress and (perhaps) the once-off levy on funds held outside the US. That is not a foregone conclusion, nor is it going to be a hold your breath event.

The American government spends first and taxes second. It does not need to tax to spend, as is the case with any country with it's own currency (i.e pretty much every country bar the members of the Euro). The deficit ceiling is a self-imposed constraint, that always get's voted down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectoral_balances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism

pedroeibar1

petethedrummer wrote: »

The American government spends first and taxes second. It does not need to tax to spend, as is the case with any country with it's own currency (i.e pretty much every country bar the members of the Euro). The deficit ceiling is a self-imposed constraint, that always get's voted down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectoral_balances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartalism

C’mon Pete, You should know that Wiki is not acceptable as a source. Trotting out a few truisms does not add much to the topic.

Laurence Kotlikoff* never was a fan of Hilary, but admits that “Clinton's policy plans never rose to the level of complete and utter stupidity -- plans that are based on undocumented assertions that don't qualify even as "alternative facts" coupled with a third-grade understanding of economics. That's what we are facing with the Trump Administration.”
(*Kotlikoff is Professor of Economics at Boston University, a Fellow of the American Academy, a Research Associate of the NBER, and President of Economic Security Planning, Inc.)

Last year the U.S. budget deficit widened by about one third to about $600 billion. Although the Budget Office is projecting a short-term narrowing, they expect it to widen medium-long term. That was before Trump proposed a sweeping overhaul of the tax code and cutting taxes, while at the same time stating he would not touch the real problem issues of Social Security and Medicare. What is worse, his pick for Treasury, Mnuchin, already has admitted that he had no idea about Medicare’s finances or how to reform them.
The National Review, not known as a lefty organ, also rips into Trump’s lack of understanding of the economic issues facing the US.

pedroeibar1

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

C’mon Pete, You should know that Wiki is not acceptable as a source. Trotting out a few truisms does not add much to the topic.

Laurence Kotlikoff* never was a fan of Hilary, but admits that “Clinton's policy plans never rose to the level of complete and utter stupidity -- plans that are based on undocumented assertions that don't qualify even as "alternative facts" coupled with a third-grade understanding of economics. That's what we are facing with the Trump Administration.”
(*Kotlikoff is Professor of Economics at Boston University, a Fellow of the American Academy, a Research Associate of the NBER, and President of Economic Security Planning, Inc.)

Last year the U.S. budget deficit widened by about one third to about $600 billion. Although the Budget Office is projecting a short-term narrowing, they expect it to widen medium-long term. That was before Trump proposed a sweeping overhaul of the tax code and cutting taxes, while at the same time stating he would not touch the real problem issues of Social Security and Medicare. What is worse, his pick for Treasury, Mnuchin, already has admitted that he had no idea about Medicare’s finances or how to reform them.
The National Review, not known as a lefty organ, also rips into Trump’s lack of understanding of the economic issues facing the US.

A gentlemans wager Pedro that two years from today, the US economy will be growing at a healthy rate, the debt static if not decreasing and Europe prospering as a result of it. I'm also game for a bottle of fine whiskey or fine wine!
I have yet to meet or read an economist in recent times that gets things right. Their social or salaried views often determine their leanings consciously or not!

pedroeibar1

Deleted User wrote: »

A gentlemans wager Pedro that two years from today, the US economy will be growing at a healthy rate, the debt static if not decreasing and Europe prospering as a result of it. I'm also game for a bottle of fine whiskey or fine wine!
I have yet to meet or read an economist in recent times that gets things right. Their social or salaried views often determine their leanings consciously or not!

Sorry El R, I have to respectfully decline, as I don’t do wagers, not even on the Grand National nor the lotto.
In any event, two years is too short a timeframe. Trump’s time in power will be fraught with tantrums at not getting his own way, and blaming everybody else. My guess is that his impact will not be very big, as he will be blocked/stymied at every turn. Both of us probably could claim to be correct, as Trump will produce figures to prove whatever he demands – ‘alternative facts’ and all that....

duploelabs

Well if you look at nordstrom, who's stock bounced up 1%, due to criticism by Trump for them dropping Ivanka Trump's clothing line, it could go either way

BlinkingLights

He's going to have to stop throwing his weight around and interfering in individual businesses. It's ultimately going to backfire on him and I'm honestly surprised there hasn't been a massive lawsuit.

The US is not a command economy.