National
Review Online
Thursday,
December 01, 2016
No one
ever doubted Donald Trump’s talent for theater, a gift he is exercising with
some flair in the matter of the Carrier air-conditioner company’s facilities in
Indiana.
Carrier
had planned to move a furnace operation to Mexico and to shutter a plant in
Huntington, Ind., where it manufactures electronic controls. After the
intervention of President-elect Trump and Governor Mike Pence, Carrier has
agreed to keep the furnace operation going in Indiana, albeit with several
hundred fewer employees. It still will close the electronics plant and offshore
those 700 or so jobs. It will move about 600 jobs from the furnace facility to
Mexico as well, though it will keep 800 of them in Indiana. It has also
promised to keep 300 research-and-development positions in Indiana — jobs it
had never planned to relocate in the first place.
There
are two aspects of this to consider: The first is a question of principle, the
second is a question of competency.
We are
not very enthusiastic about government-run economic-development programs that
rely on industry-specific — or firm-specific — tax breaks, grants, or other
concessions. In the long run (and generally in the short run, too), these
programs are almost always corrupt in themselves and a source of corruption in
others, with the benefits going mainly to politically influential and
well-connected companies, whether that means Solyndra during the Obama
administration or Carrier in the Trump administration. Inevitably, what happens
is this: The government creates a set of incentives to encourage certain kinds
of business activity, from “green” energy to manufacturing, and then, after a
few years pass, complains mightily that companies are responding to the
incentives that the government created. Consider those periodic journalistic
spasms over General Electric’s low corporate-tax bill or the criticism that
Starbucks encountered for taking advantage of manufacturing credits in its
manufacturing operations: Those deductions and carve-outs didn’t happen by
accident — they happened exactly the way the Carrier deal is happening.
In the
long run, cushioning the bottom lines of particular industries or companies is
a poor model of economic development, and the rationale of “saving jobs” is
almost never defensible once you run the numbers. It is a hard truth, but if a
worker’s job is “saved” by writing his employer a $7 million check, then what
you are engaged in is not economic development but income redistribution.
That’s
the question of principle, which is the more important one. But there is also
the subordinate question of whether those running these schemes are any good at
it. For example, Texas’s two big economic-development programs operate in
approximately the same way as the Trump-Pence deal in Indiana, but even critics
of those programs could grudgingly credit Rick Perry for getting the most out
of them during his governorship.
We are
not so sure that is true in the case of Carrier. Carrier is a division of
United Technologies, which is an interesting company, one that does a great
deal of business with the federal government. In fact, it is reliant upon
federal contracts for a quarter of its revenue. That means that the government
has a great deal of leverage in dealing with it. Ask any business that relies
on Walmart for a quarter of its sales what that kind of leverage looks like
when wielded expertly. The incoming administration has the upper hand in the
relationship, and the best it could do is watch as Carrier goes through with about
two-thirds of its offshoring plans, sparing a few hundred of them in exchange
for a trailer-load of money.
The
return on investment here is not obviously positive.
Although
it is a very good deal if it is your job being saved, it does not look like
such a good deal if you pay the taxes that are making the deal happen. But
nobody ever takes into account the poor taxpayer, whose resources are treated
as though they were inexhaustible. This is a case of Frédéric Bastiat’s contest
between the seen and the unseen: Every dollar spent subsidizing Carrier in
Indiana is a dollar that could have been invested in a more productive
enterprise that does not require government support, that could have put food
on a family’s table or helped to fill up its retirement account. The benefits
of the deal are easy to account for, but the costs are dispersed and diffused
and difficult to account for, which is what makes these sorts of deals seem
attractive: It is an exercise in one-sided accounting.
The
Trump administration will no doubt get political juice out of the Carrier deal,
whose symbolism will be particularly welcome in the Rust Belt that just
delivered Trump the presidency. In the long run, though, corporatism is no
substitute for a healthy overall economy and a subsequently strong labor
market, which we hope the Trump White House and Congress will encourage with a
new policy direction beginning in January.
No comments:
Post a Comment