ShareThis Page

A loss for Americans & Mexicans

| Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016, 4:18 p.m.
This file photo taken on December 1, 2016 shows 
President-elect Donald Trump (right) and Vice President-elect Governor Mike Pence visiting the Carrier air conditioning and heating company in Indianapolis, Indiana.
AFP/Getty Images
This file photo taken on December 1, 2016 shows President-elect Donald Trump (right) and Vice President-elect Governor Mike Pence visiting the Carrier air conditioning and heating company in Indianapolis, Indiana.

I'm all for cutting taxes. But I oppose selective tax breaks given to a particular business in exchange for that business agreeing to act in ways that it would not otherwise. Such selective tax breaks are merely bribes to entice particular businesses to do the government's bidding.

Such a bribe was negotiated by President-elect Donald Trump and Vice-President-elect Mike Pence (still governor of Indiana) to be paid by Indiana to Carrier's parent company, United Technologies, in exchange for abandoning plans to move 1,000 jobs to Mexico.

Unsurprisingly, politicians and Carrier's workers are delighted. But even The New York Times was favorably impressed. It reported that this deal “also signals that Mr. Trump is a different kind of Republican, willing to take on big business, at least in individual cases.” (I'll bet lots of big businesses are salivating at the prospect of being “taken on” this way by President Trump!)

President Obama's press secretary, Josh Earnest, praised the deal as “good news.”

But there is no “win” or “good news” here for anyone but Trump (who scored political points) and United Technologies workers and shareholders (whose incomes now are subsidized by taxpayers).

What this deal boils down to is Trump and other politicians spending other people's money to bribe a corporation to continue to operate in an economically inefficient manner. The total of resources used to produce air conditioners will be greater than necessary. This in turn means output of other goods and services will be lower, and air-conditioner prices will be higher, than otherwise.

Yet Trump and Pence will point with pride to the jobs they “saved,” wrongly claiming that helps to make America great again. And the vast majority of Americans will swallow this claim. They will not understand that these jobs were saved only by forcibly transferring resources from them to United Technologies.

The reason for this misunderstanding isn't hard to discover. The saved jobs are concentrated in one place. Those workers are aware that, without Trump's intervention, they would have had to find other jobs.

But the cost of saving these jobs is spread over more than 6.5 million Indianans whose taxes are effectively raised by this intervention, and by hundreds of millions of consumers who will pay higher air-conditioner prices. Not realizing their loss, they remain silent despite the total of these losses being greater than the total gains to United Technologies and its workers.

Also among the losers, of course, are the Mexican workers denied an opportunity to build better lives for themselves and their families. Trump's crony-capitalist trade policy, therefore, is at odds with his desire to keep poor Mexicans from emigrating to the United States. Mexicans whose economic opportunities improve through trade with Americans are less likely to emigrate northward in search of higher-paying jobs.

Yet Trump would rather wall us Americans off from our neighbors to the south — making both America and Mexico poorer — than allow us all to be united by the peaceful and enriching bonds of commerce.

Donald J. Boudreaux is a professor of economics and Getchell Chair at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. His column appears twice monthly.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.