Donald trump threatening to impose 35% tariff

While Pro might accuse con of not understanding things, I would like for our readers to take a good look at the resolution: “35% tariff on US companies who leave the USA ...”.Does anyone see the problem there?You don’t put tariffs on companies. You put tariffs on products. Before the backpedal occurs, there is no mistaking what is being talked about: entire company vs the products they make, Pro is versed on this matter: “… Trump never claimed that he would impose a 35% tariff against Chinese products; the 35% number was used as a threat against American companies .....” (1) Emphasis Con’s.Typically, tariffs are blanket applied to a company (or country) when various organizations demonstrate that flooding a market with cheap goods (known as “dumping”) is doing harm to the buying market. In those instances, the sellers intentionally sell their goods at a lower price than they do in their domestic market. This unscrupulous act is frowned upon by trading countries the world over, and the WTO has adopted regulations as to how various governments may react to its practice. (2)That explained, Pro/Trump has yet to differentiate how companies that (for the lack of a better) ex-patriate to protect their bottom line should be differentiated in their various dealings. Assuming Acme Company makes widgets X Y and Z domestically, but for reasons decide to move to make widget Z elsewhere, is it practical to impose a tariff on the whole of the company? If Acme is making widget A in another country, what does that have to do with them moving widget Z? That artificially increases the price to the consumer, and that is not beneficial. That is protectionism run amok, widget Z ‘s average price is now artificially higher, widget A’s price is now artificially higher, and the consumer suffers for it. This assumes Acme Company even sells widget Z in the US anymore, as it’s not worth the price hike, thus lowering the competition to make widget Z in the US, potentially edging prices higher due to that lack of competition. Trump nor Pro has mentioned “dumping” or any other illegal dealings in any of this tariff talk, it has been strictly punitive in fashion, so this is not about illicit dealings being done. While unpatriotic, there is absolutely nothing illegal about moving to another country in order to exploit a cheaper labor pool or get a different set of taxes. Pro even agrees, its smart to help your bottom line “…Trump took full advantage of the rules and loopholes given to him. He didn't create the game; he used the rules to his advantage. This is called being smart.” (3) Trump is setting the precendent of punishing smart companies. Trump is positioning America to be a financial prison, that being once you start dealing in our home land, you are stuck. That does not attract businesses or companies to the US, which again, is net negative. This was not a threat. This was a slogan, akin to “locking her up”. The Republican in Congress know it. Trump knows it. US companies know it, especially Carrier, since they were shaking Trump’s hand as they were sending jobs to Mexico. The example has thus been set: give Trump the ability to save face and he will fawn all over himself about saving 50% (or fewer…) of jobs in question, and of course the concept of a company-wide tariff vanishes like smoke in the wind, despite clear outsourcing being done. Trump is talking fast and loose to play to his audience, and that is reckless behavior. While Pro might state that Con “doesn’t understand”, there are people, countries, trade partners, and allies that might take such loose talk seriously or at least as an indication of character. Such sloganeering undermines Trumps ability to be taken seriously on the world stage, and that most definitely is bad for America.(1) http://www.debate.org...(2) http://www.investopedia.com...(3) http://www.debate.org...