After all, Tariffs don’t work…..right?
GE “Reshores” washer and dryer production, spending 490 million and creating 800 jobs.
Remember, GE Appliances is Chinese owned.
In the MIDDLE of the RIGHT
I am the extremist your Government warned you about…. Remember: "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch"…..But you can help when you buy your AMAZON purchases through my links at no cost to you.! (As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.)
Tariffs can nudge a move, but they’re not the reason GE’s investing $490M in Kentucky. That groundwork was laid with Kentucky tax incentives back in 2014 and steady expansions over several years. Feels a little like someone showing up at the ribbon-cutting and saying ‘You’re welcome.‘
I am gonna ask you to back that up with some documentation, else it is as invalid a statement as you claim my interpretation is.
I find it oddly coincidental that it suddenly happened after the tariffs if it was started due to legislation begun 7 or more years ago.
You stated it, back it up.
You asked for documentation to support my statement that GE Appliances’ $490 million laundry plant investment in Louisville was years in the making — well before the most recent round of tariffs. Fair ask. Here’s what the record shows:
A Timeline of GE’s Long-Term Commitment to Louisville
2014 – Kentucky lays the groundwork
The Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority (KEDFA) approved up to $40 million in tax incentives for GE Appliances, tied to a $277 million investment and the retention of over 5,200 jobs at Appliance Park in Louisville.
Source: Kentucky Cabinet for Economic Development
2018 – GE ramps up investment
GE announced over $200 million in upgrades, including expansion of laundry and dishwasher lines. This was the first public signal of a renewed focus on Appliance Park manufacturing — still before recent tariff rounds.
Source: WMKY.org – 2018 report
2021 – Bigger expansion, more incentives
GE committed $450 million more to modernize its Louisville operations. This came with an enhanced $80 million incentive deal from the state and job commitments totaling 7,100 workers.
Source: GE Pressroom
2025 – $490 million laundry plant reshoring
Only after years of tax incentives, engineering redesign, and expanded capacity did GE announce the $490 million move of laundry production from China back to Kentucky. This was not-some overnight reaction.
and that’s my point: They talked big, but didn’t pull the trigger until the tariffs made it an economic necessity.
At the end of it, you can claim it was the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority (and maybe it was, we will likely never know) but it wasn’t until the Trump Tariffs started that they decided to actually do the investment and reshoring. Before then it was just hot air and press releases.
I was hoping for more than what anyone could find in a Google search.Maybe an actual smoking gun rather than a bunch of general press releases and coincidence. But that’s the way you roll, innit? Lots of words, but very little substance.
Interesting…
B, you’re moving the goalposts here. You said “back it up,” and I showed detailed documentation of multi-phase investments, state incentive packages, and engineering ramp-up going back over a decade. Now you’re dismissing it as “hot air and press releases” because it doesn’t include a literal quote saying “we were going to do this anyway.” That’s not how corporate strategy is revealed — especially when it involves competition, trade policy, and labor negotiations.
You’re asking for a “smoking gun” that doesn’t exist in business decisions like this — and wouldn’t be public if it did. What does exist is a clear and well-documented pattern:
Kentucky began offering tax incentives tied to Appliance Park as far back as 2014.
GE steadily increased its investment over multiple stages — $200M in 2018, $450M in 2021, now $490M in 2025.
Each stage included detailed job commitments, capital outlays, and facility upgrades — not vague PR.
Engineering work for new washer platforms was underway in Louisville years before this final reshoring move.
If tariffs made the math tip faster, fine — but they didn’t build the factory. That’s the work of long-term strategic planning, logistical realignment, and public-private investment.
And here’s where your theory really runs into trouble, B — because it asks us to believe something that corporate boards, CFOs, and shareholders would find absolutely reckless:
That GE Appliances, or any global manufacturer, would commit nearly half a billion dollars in capital investment — construction, tooling, supply chain restructuring, automation systems, workforce expansion — based primarily on a political trade policy that could vanish in a few years.
That’s not how corporations operate. That’s not how capital planning works. And that’s not how Fortune 500-level decisions are made.
Companies like GE don’t gamble hundreds of millions on temporary tariffs. They build factories based on:
Labor force reliability
Logistics and transportation access
Long-term cost models
Public incentives and infrastructure support
Geopolitical risk reduction
And most critically: stability of investment return over 10–20 years, not the next election cycle.
Tariffs may have accelerated the timetable — no one’s saying they didn’t influence the equation. But to claim they caused the entire move — when years of tax incentives, plant upgrades, and product-line localization were already in motion — is just not supported by how industrial economics works.
Frankly, if GE had made this move solely because of tariffs, their shareholders would have every reason to question their financial stewardship. That kind of short-term decision-making is how companies lose competitive advantage — not gain it.
On a final note, you want to argue that Trump’s tariffs contributed to the final reshoring decision, I won’t disagree with that. But to argue they caused a half-billion-dollar move — in isolation, absent a decade of groundwork — ignores not only the facts but the basic way business decisions are made.
You’re looking for a smoking gun. What I’ve shown is a paper trail. Because in the real world, that’s how the big decisions actually happen.
“That GE Appliances, or any global manufacturer, would commit nearly half a billion dollars in capital investment — construction, tooling, supply chain restructuring, automation systems, workforce expansion — based primarily on a political trade policy that could vanish in a few years.
“That’s not how corporations operate. That’s not how capital planning works. And that’s not how Fortune 500-level decisions are made”
And yet oddly enough it HAS happened: Ford, Chrysler (or whatever they are called these days) and GM all made exactly that decision based on the tariffs: Honda and Toyota also. Apple, Intel, TSMC…LG, Samsung, Whirlpool (and now GE Appliances)… Hyundai Steel… Pfizer and Eli Lilly…. Rolls Royce Aerospace…..to name a few that have made that decision to invest in the US exactly to circumvent tariffs.
You claim that “GE steadily increased its investment over multiple stages — $200M in 2018, $450M in 2021, now $490M in 2025″…but what really happened was that they PROMISED to do the investments, but never did until they had to…
Oddly enough, the 490 million was just promises until the tariffs happened. then it became real.
You tried to say that the decision wasn’t made based on tariffs. I said “prove it” (one is as provable (or not) as the other)….you made the statement….then you backtracked and said that it was (maybe) accelerated by the tariffs….which was my point in the beginning…that it was nothing until the tariffs forced GE to step up and actually Do Something.
You are doubletalking and dancing and changing the narrative (or trying to) when cornered, like most internet weasels and liberals…I expect you will call me a racist or a Nazi soon, it is the next step when people like you can’t win an argument.
You chose to say that “it wasn’t the tariffs that caused the commitment and actual action to happen”. All you have shown is press releases and promises by a company that never funded those promises until they had to, then you weaseled and admitted that (maybe) they were “accelerated by the tariffs”.
So which is it? First it was “not the reason GE’s investing $490M” and was “like someone showing up at the ribbon-cutting and saying ‘You’re welcome.‘ ” then it was (maybe) “accelerated by the tariffs”….
Yer a pedantic ass. Go pick nits elsewhere.
B,
You’re not actually disagreeing with what I said — you’re just angry that I didn’t take the bait and turn it into a shouting match.
Let me clarify one thing, since you seem stuck on it:
I never claimed tariffs had no role. What I said — clearly — was that GE’s decision wasn’t made solely because of tariffs. And that tariffs alone don’t explain a $490M capital investment that requires years of groundwork, incentives, and engineering prep. That’s not “weaseling” — it’s acknowledging that real-world decisions involve multiple factors. You’re welcome to scroll up and see that I said exactly that from the start.
Now, regarding your examples — Ford, GM, Intel, TSMC, etc. — yes, many companies made reshoring decisions in response to trade friction. But in every one of those cases, the buildout timelines, incentive agreements, site studies, and labor negotiations began years before the first shovel hit the dirt. No one is denying that tariffs influenced decisions — only that they caused them in isolation.
The idea that GE “only acted when forced” overlooks the $200M spent in 2018 and the $450M announced in 2021 — long before the latest round of tariffs. That’s actual money spent. Not just talk.
You asked for documentation — I gave it. Now you’re saying “well, that’s just press releases.” You demanded a smoking gun, but in corporate strategy, there’s rarely a single trigger. That’s how complex investments work. It’s not doubletalk. It’s how business actually operates.
And finally — your accusations about my motives and character say far more about your state of mind than mine. I’m not interested in labeling you anything. I’m interested in discussing real-world policy and economics. If that makes me pedantic, I’ll take it.
How much of that money they promised actually materialized until the tariffs happened? (You seem to be missing that point)
How much MORE was promised to make it so that they would not be subject to tariffs?
You can dance all you want. You said “it wasn’t the tariffs” at first, then weaseled your way around to “Maybe tariffs helped”.
“your accusations about my motives and character say far more about your state of mind than mine”
I call em like I see ’em
Yer a weasel.
Go back to your hole