The Wall Street Journal editorial board critizies Trump’s Carrier deal, calling it a “shakedown:”
A mercantilist Trump trade policy that jeopardized those exports would throw far more Americans out of work than the relatively low-paying jobs he’s preserved for now in Indianapolis. Mr. Trump’s Carrier squeeze might even cost more U.S. jobs if it makes CEOs more reluctant to build plants in the U.S. because it would be politically difficult to close them.
Mr. Trump has now muscled his way into at least two corporate decisions about where and how to do business. But who would you rather have making a decision about where to make furnaces or cars? A company whose profitability depends on making good decisions, or a branding executive turned politician who wants to claim political credit?
I fully expected them to give Trump a pass. Credit to them for sticking to their principles.
At the Washington Post, Fred Hiatt characterized the deal as right out of Putin’s playbook:
It’s good that about 1,000 Carrier Corp. workers will not be losing their jobs. But there is a whiff of Putinism in the combination of bribery and menace that may have affected Carrier’s decision – the bribery of tax breaks, the menace of potential lost defense contracts for Carrier’s parent company, United Technologies.
If this were to become the U.S. government’s standard method of operation, the results would be Russian, too: dwindling investment, slowing economic growth, fewer jobs.
It’s always been clear that Trump understands bullying, but doesn’t care about policy. This deal is a reflection of that. There’s no policy or plan to keep manufacturing jobs; just a willingness to bully and bribe a specific company.