Would you support subsidizing...

[Brain357]

Yes OP, I would be in favor of it and we are seeing why right now.

When it comes to a crisis...every country has to look after THEIR OWN citizens. So we are not getting the usual supplies of drugs or masks or goggles or gowns needed to the health care workers to remain safe.

If this were a war, we would not be able to get the steel or aluminum we need to build tanks, planes, and ships.

It's a matter of survival to have your own manufacturing base!

That would only lead to more shortages and we’d all be paying more.

Why? Why is encouraging a domestic industry going to lead to shortages? Do you think, somehow the government would not let the rest of the world compete on our market? And when cheaper government subsidized local supply ran out. . . of course the market costs would be more expensive. DUH.

If the government subsidized local production, foreign producers will not be able to afford to compete.

Take the AG bill. The government gives money to farmers, and they factor that into production. Foreign producers cannot compete because their produce, sugar, beef, chicken etc. is much more expensive.

So, if our government gave money to critical industries, which then produced product for domestic consumption which was cheaper than foreign imports. . . at the point that domestic supply then ran out. . . why would the foreign supply not be allowed in at more expensive costs?

Do tell?

Subsidizing never leads to cheaper products. You want government to control markets. When that is done shortages happen.

 

[Brain357]

...U.S. re-industrialization?

Why or why not?

You need to be more specific.

You've got to keep in mind I'm not as macro-economically savvy as you are...but what I mean is returning industry from China...and other countries.

Subsidizing it thru tax incentives and even grants...and then instituting some forms if protectionism to allow it to grow.

Economically that is very unlikely to work. The USSR was a very closed economy, it failed miserably...

The people of the USSR were DIRT FUCKING POOR so there were no consumers ya dummy.

It's a completely false comparison.

A much better comparison is to compare it with the AG BILL. That is a subsidized industry.

Or the energy industry. That is another industry we subsidize for national security.

Venezuela does a lot is subsidizing, you like the results?

 

[MisterBeale]

...U.S. re-industrialization?

Why or why not?

You need to be more specific.

You've got to keep in mind I'm not as macro-economically savvy as you are...but what I mean is returning industry from China...and other countries.

Subsidizing it thru tax incentives and even grants...and then instituting some forms if protectionism to allow it to grow.

Economically that is very unlikely to work. The USSR was a very closed economy, it failed miserably...

The people of the USSR were DIRT FUCKING POOR so there were no consumers ya dummy.

Yes and closing our economy would make us dirt fucking poor too. That’s the point.

Nice strawman

No one said anything about "closing our economy."

If you produce steel here, or you make medical supplies here, or you are making critical defense hardware, you get a subsidy.

If you want to import steel or medical supplies, go ahead. TRY to compete.

 

[Siete]

Yes OP, I would be in favor of it and we are seeing why right now.

When it comes to a crisis...every country has to look after THEIR OWN citizens. So we are not getting the usual supplies of drugs or masks or goggles or gowns needed to the health care workers to remain safe.

If this were a war, we would not be able to get the steel or aluminum we need to build tanks, planes, and ships.

It's a matter of survival to have your own manufacturing base!

That would only lead to more shortages and we’d all be paying more.

Why? Why is encouraging a domestic industry going to lead to shortages? Do you think, somehow the government would not let the rest of the world compete on our market? And when cheaper government subsidized local supply ran out. . . of course the market costs would be more expensive. DUH.

If the government subsidized local production, foreign producers will not be able to afford to compete.

Take the AG bill. The government gives money to farmers, and they factor that into production. Foreign producers cannot compete because their produce, sugar, beef, chicken etc. is much more expensive.

So, if our government gave money to critical industries, which then produced product for domestic consumption which was cheaper than foreign imports. . . at the point that domestic supply then ran out. . . why would the foreign supply not be allowed in at more expensive costs?

Do tell?

Americans refuse to pick fruit for 10$ a day, foreign labor jumps at the chance .

 

[flacaltenn]

Allow me to familiarize all of you with what is known as the Smiley Curve of Production:

This represents where value is added, i.e., where the profits are made, in the production cycle.

As you can see, the big money is in design phase and the distribution phase.

The design phase is the engineering phase. The invention phase. This is where innovation happens, and innovation happens as the result of higher education.

That is where we are seriously flagging, folks. You know who is kicking ass in this part of the Smiley Curve?

India.

The other end of the Smiley Curve is distribution. The Apple Store. The sales part of the picture.

It doesn't take a lot of brains to sell shit, and this is where most of our weight is thrown around these days. Service industry bullshit. That's where we are making our money.

But it isn't the idiot low skilled workforce making that money. It's the owners of the company. You want to make money for yourself, you need to be on the other end of the curve, and that requires an education.

There are factories cranking out laptops by the millions, and at the end of the assembly line they glue on corporate logos. And the logo makes all the difference in how much each laptop will sell for. Pretty crazy.

All because of the Smiley Curve.

But you know what? If someone else starts inventing the new shit, do you think they are going to sell it through US outlets, or will they sell through their own outlets and bring all that cash home?

Yeah. So think about that.

Now look at the middle of the curve. There's no money in manufacturing. That's why a lot of shit is made in China by slaves these days. The margins are just too narrow.

But America is still manufacturing more stuff than it ever has. It really is. People who tell you America doesn't make things any more are FULL OF SHIT.

It just takes a lot less PEOPLE to make all that STUFF. The wonders of automation.


Look at the curve. Think about it. A lot.

I do. All the time.

We are going to get whacked because we are slacking off on the Design side of the curve. The innovation and invention side. That's the genesis of everything which is ever created, folks.

So you better start believing we need a LOT more higher education in America.

A lot more.

I think you fell for a Smiley graph joke.... Any COMPANY that loses touch with it's manufacturing issues and costs is DOOMED... Personally seen it happen when my clients went to China... DESIGNERS never get their hands dirty fixing manufacturing problems that THEY created... Repair people don't have tight coupling to the FACTORY for the hard problems.. Getting modifications into the overseas factory to correct sales issues are more complicated and error prone...

I've watched several of my clients STRUGGLE with these issues.. And I've had WEEKS of frustrating Midnight team calls to the factories in Asia..

Graph was probably part of a MBA thesis that VALUES MBAs... Or an outright attempt to TROLL their colleagues in manufacturing...

We had the same lack of respect for SUPPLY CHAINS and manufacturing when all our electronics went to JAPAN in the 60s/70s... And what you learn is --- that after a year or two -- ALL of your product expertise is IN the factory and NONE of it is available in Dallas Texas headquarters...

They who MANUFACTURE it -- understand your product BETTER than you do...

 

[Brain357]

You need to be more specific.

You've got to keep in mind I'm not as macro-economically savvy as you are...but what I mean is returning industry from China...and other countries.

Subsidizing it thru tax incentives and even grants...and then instituting some forms if protectionism to allow it to grow.

Economically that is very unlikely to work. The USSR was a very closed economy, it failed miserably...

The people of the USSR were DIRT FUCKING POOR so there were no consumers ya dummy.

Yes and closing our economy would make us dirt fucking poor too. That’s the point.

Nice strawman

No one said anything about "closing our economy."

If you produce steel here, or you make medical supplies here, or you are making critical defense hardware, you get a subsidy.

If you want to import steel or medical supplies, go ahead. TRY to compete.

Your economic theories are funny and wouldn’t be supported by any economist.

 

[CWayne]

Seems like a strawman...not a serious question.

So here is a non-serious answer...

I'd prefer that Apple made phones here and paid a UAW wage...and protected that wage through tarriffs if necessary.

I am being very serious.

Labor is by far the largest operating expense of any business. That is precisely why manufacturers move overseas. It has virtually nothing to do with taxes.

Cheap labor is precisely what gives them their edge.

So no, I am not kidding.

I get that. But in the long term we are strengthening China and weakening our own economy. If we wish to continue our current standard of living, we should be thinking long term and not selling our future for a very temporary wage advantage...IMO.

We have tons of wealth and jobs. China is not the problem..

LMFAO

China IS the problem for about 95% if the shit we are going through.

Nope. Blaming China is textbook misdirection by demagogues.

Our biggest problem is us. We've gotten fat, dumb, and lazy.

Giving China a pass is the pinnacle of folly and ignorance.

 

[toomuchtime_]

...U.S. re-industrialization?

Why or why not?

You need to be more specific.

You've got to keep in mind I'm not as macro-economically savvy as you are...but what I mean is returning industry from China...and other countries.

Subsidizing it thru tax incentives and even grants...and then instituting some forms if protectionism to allow it to grow.

If our companies are not efficient enough to compete on a level playing field, then we should move investment to other fields in which we are more competitive, but if they are failing because of unfair trade practices by other countries, then I would support the use of tariffs to level the playing field. Because of the size of our economy, that would have the same protective effect as subsidies in our domestic markets.

If you are talking about manufacturing, the situation has very little to do with competetiveness.

The paradigm has shifted. Bigly.

Look at it this way. At the time our Constitution was signed, 98 percent of all jobs were in manufacturing. Even toddlers were out in the fields working their asses off.

But with the invention of more efficient farming methods and instruments, it took less people to make the same amount of food. We have advanced that technology so fantastically well, that it now takes less than 2 percent of our population to not only feed the US, but large swaths of the planet.

Now what would be your reaction to a moron demagogue who promised to "bring back all those lost farming jobs!"?

You'd recognize him as an idiot, right?

That same is true of mining. Those coal jobs are not coming back. It takes less manpower to mine now.

Just so with manufacturing. 80 percent of the jobs which have been lost in the last three decades have been lost to automation, not China.

There is just as much money in mining and agriculture as there ever has been. Even moreso. But that money is concentrated in a much smaller percentage of the population than in the past.

We are manufacturing more stuff in the US than we ever have before, but that money is also concentrate into a smaller percentage of our population.

Agriculture jobs shrank, now manufacturing jobs are shrinking. The jobs are moving into the service industry now. That's the fastest growing economic sector.

Our financial services sector provides something like 30 to 40 percent of GDP! Crazy, huh?

We need to be educating our children for the jobs of tomorrow, not the jobs of yesterday.

It's not quite that simple. While technology makes workers more productive so that fewer workers are needed to produce the same output, it also creates jobs manufacturing those ver machines that make workers more productive. Our problem with China is that while labor is cheaper in China, China levies tariffs on our exports and to escape those tariffs US manufacturers have to set up inside of China and to do that must take Chinese companies and partners, and that's how our manufacturing jobs moved to China.

Because the WTO recognizes China as a developing country, China is allowed to protect its industries against competition, and the US is not allowed to do the same thing. What President Trump has done is to try to level the playing field by making it less profitable to manufacture goods in China to sell to the US market just as China has made it less profitable to manufacture goods in the US to sell to China.

 

[Brain357]

Why would anyone want to give our deeply in debt government more power to mess up our economy? Imagine the new corruption.

 

[MisterBeale]

You need to be more specific.

You've got to keep in mind I'm not as macro-economically savvy as you are...but what I mean is returning industry from China...and other countries.

Subsidizing it thru tax incentives and even grants...and then instituting some forms if protectionism to allow it to grow.

Economically that is very unlikely to work. The USSR was a very closed economy, it failed miserably...

The people of the USSR were DIRT FUCKING POOR so there were no consumers ya dummy.

It's a completely false comparison.

A much better comparison is to compare it with the AG BILL. That is a subsidized industry.

Or the energy industry. That is another industry we subsidize for national security.

Venezuela does a lot is subsidizing, you like the results?

Venezuela's problems have nothing to do with that.

Venezuela's problems have to do with that fact that the entire globalist ruling elite has banned them from buying and selling on the world market.

It is like siege warfare. Their nation is under siege, because the global elites don't approve of who their population voted for. Only a few nations have agree to trade with them.

Plus, they do not have a very diversified economy. Their entire GDP is based on the export of one resource.

IN SHORT, you are making a false equivalency fallacy.

Do you really want to compare Venezuela with the USA and expect to be taken seriously?


Goobers, that is something that the folks you often argue with always do to you, when you are arguing for the policies you support.

 

[MisterBeale]

You've got to keep in mind I'm not as macro-economically savvy as you are...but what I mean is returning industry from China...and other countries.

Subsidizing it thru tax incentives and even grants...and then instituting some forms if protectionism to allow it to grow.

Economically that is very unlikely to work. The USSR was a very closed economy, it failed miserably...

The people of the USSR were DIRT FUCKING POOR so there were no consumers ya dummy.

Yes and closing our economy would make us dirt fucking poor too. That’s the point.

Nice strawman

No one said anything about "closing our economy."

If you produce steel here, or you make medical supplies here, or you are making critical defense hardware, you get a subsidy.

If you want to import steel or medical supplies, go ahead. TRY to compete.

Your economic theories are funny and wouldn’t be supported by any economist.

Well. . . at least on that, we can mostly agree.

The Keynsians certainly won't, they all want a one world government.

. . . and the Austrians won't, they are all far too dogmatic.

Like I wrote in my first post, it was just a thought I had been kicking around that I had been thinking about since I read some articles and last time I visited the grocery store. . .

 

[Missourian]

So you want our government to allow Apple to treat American factory workers like slaves, and have them live in company barracks with suicide nets, and pay them peanuts like they can do in China?

Seems like a strawman...not a serious question.

So here is a non-serious answer...

I'd prefer that Apple made phones here and paid a UAW wage...and protected that wage through tarriffs if necessary.

The price would go up rather drastically.

Perhaps to target industries to return here. Build factories as a guaranteed percentage of the market and slowly increase that percentage over decades. If tariffs are needed to bring prices closer then maybe this is part of the pain needed to become self sufficient again. The socialist way will reduce with this.

Factories don't move overseas because of taxes!

It's all about labor costs.

And tariffs are paid by the importer and consumer, not the exporter. I do not understand why this does not penetrate the skulls of trumptards.

It's not that it doesn't get thru...it is that the fact is irrelevant. Whoever pays (whomever?)...it levels the price point field.

 

[Andylusion]

...U.S. re-industrialization?

Why or why not?

No. I would not.

First off, I'm a little baffled by this romance about the industrial era. Steel mill jobs suck dude. You want more people to have sucky jobs? Why?

Risk of being killed. Hot and sweltering all day long. Fumes and chemicals. Covered in soot morning, noon, and night.

This is what we want more of?

Why?

Now I am not opposed to these jobs. But nor am I in favor of them. Better to have more engineering jobs.

In general though, I am utterly opposed to any subsidies for any economic growth at all.

When you grow something in the free-market, you end up with a more robust economy. Because inherently a free-market growth is not dependent on anything but the market.

When you have government driven growth, you end up with an economy dependent on the government.

A perfect example of this, was the windmill industry in the UK. So the UK had huge subsidies for wind power. This naturally resulted in a large growth to the industry.

Then the UK government simply didn't have the money for continued subsidies, and they cut them. The result was a sudden and dramatic crash in the industry.

In the short term, subsidizing industry would create growth. But eventually the government will have to cut those subsidies, and that will result in a crash.

 

[OnePercenter]

So you want our government to allow Apple to treat American factory workers like slaves, and have them live in company barracks with suicide nets, and pay them peanuts like they can do in China?

Seems like a strawman...not a serious question.

So here is a non-serious answer...

I'd prefer that Apple made phones here and paid a UAW wage...and protected that wage through tarriffs if necessary.

I am being very serious.

Labor is by far the largest operating expense of any business. That is precisely why manufacturers move overseas. It has virtually nothing to do with taxes.

Cheap labor is precisely what gives them their edge.

So no, I am not kidding.

So lets remove taxes AND the largest operating expense AND American Workers.

-Jail all employers that knowingly hire illegal aliens.

-End all Republican worker visa programs.

-Base Federal tax for corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2020 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-offs/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with unlimited employees; employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2020 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 15 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

My plan would reduce business costs for employees and taxes to 30%. That's a 15%-30% drop.

My plan would put BILLIONS into the economy daily.

My plan would put the $100 trillion plus currently owned by corporate America back into the economy.

My plan would end all welfare.

My plan would significantly increase social security and pension payments.

 

[Brain357]

You've got to keep in mind I'm not as macro-economically savvy as you are...but what I mean is returning industry from China...and other countries.

Subsidizing it thru tax incentives and even grants...and then instituting some forms if protectionism to allow it to grow.

Economically that is very unlikely to work. The USSR was a very closed economy, it failed miserably...

The people of the USSR were DIRT FUCKING POOR so there were no consumers ya dummy.

It's a completely false comparison.

A much better comparison is to compare it with the AG BILL. That is a subsidized industry.

Or the energy industry. That is another industry we subsidize for national security.

Venezuela does a lot is subsidizing, you like the results?

Venezuela's problems have nothing to do with that.

Venezuela's problems have to do with that fact that the entire globalist ruling elite has banned them from buying and selling on the world market.

It is like siege warfare. Their nation is under siege, because the global elites don't approve of who their population voted for. Only a few nations have agree to trade with them.

Plus, they do not have a very diversified economy. Their entire GDP is based on the export of one resource.

IN SHORT, you are making a false equivalency fallacy.

Do you really want to compare Venezuela with the USA and expect to be taken seriously?


Goobers, that is something that the folks you often argue with always do to you, when you are arguing for the policies you support.

So you think socialism works then?

 

[MisterBeale]

Economically that is very unlikely to work. The USSR was a very closed economy, it failed miserably...

The people of the USSR were DIRT FUCKING POOR so there were no consumers ya dummy.

It's a completely false comparison.

A much better comparison is to compare it with the AG BILL. That is a subsidized industry.

Or the energy industry. That is another industry we subsidize for national security.

Venezuela does a lot is subsidizing, you like the results?

Venezuela's problems have nothing to do with that.

Venezuela's problems have to do with that fact that the entire globalist ruling elite has banned them from buying and selling on the world market.

It is like siege warfare. Their nation is under siege, because the global elites don't approve of who their population voted for. Only a few nations have agree to trade with them.

Plus, they do not have a very diversified economy. Their entire GDP is based on the export of one resource.

IN SHORT, you are making a false equivalency fallacy.

Do you really want to compare Venezuela with the USA and expect to be taken seriously?


Goobers, that is something that the folks you often argue with always do to you, when you are arguing for the policies you support.

So you think socialism works then?

 

[dblack]

The people of the USSR were DIRT FUCKING POOR so there were no consumers ya dummy.

It's a completely false comparison.

A much better comparison is to compare it with the AG BILL. That is a subsidized industry.

Or the energy industry. That is another industry we subsidize for national security.

Venezuela does a lot is subsidizing, you like the results?

Venezuela's problems have nothing to do with that.

Venezuela's problems have to do with that fact that the entire globalist ruling elite has banned them from buying and selling on the world market.

It is like siege warfare. Their nation is under siege, because the global elites don't approve of who their population voted for. Only a few nations have agree to trade with them.

Plus, they do not have a very diversified economy. Their entire GDP is based on the export of one resource.

IN SHORT, you are making a false equivalency fallacy.

Do you really want to compare Venezuela with the USA and expect to be taken seriously?


Goobers, that is something that the folks you often argue with always do to you, when you are arguing for the policies you support.

So you think socialism works then?

That doesn't answer the question. Do you think government should decide how society invests its wealth?

 

[Brain357]

The people of the USSR were DIRT FUCKING POOR so there were no consumers ya dummy.

It's a completely false comparison.

A much better comparison is to compare it with the AG BILL. That is a subsidized industry.

Or the energy industry. That is another industry we subsidize for national security.

Venezuela does a lot is subsidizing, you like the results?

Venezuela's problems have nothing to do with that.

Venezuela's problems have to do with that fact that the entire globalist ruling elite has banned them from buying and selling on the world market.

It is like siege warfare. Their nation is under siege, because the global elites don't approve of who their population voted for. Only a few nations have agree to trade with them.

Plus, they do not have a very diversified economy. Their entire GDP is based on the export of one resource.

IN SHORT, you are making a false equivalency fallacy.

Do you really want to compare Venezuela with the USA and expect to be taken seriously?


Goobers, that is something that the folks you often argue with always do to you, when you are arguing for the policies you support.

So you think socialism works then?

You are the one saying Venezuela would be great if it wasn’t for the mean world.

 

[MisterBeale]

It's a completely false comparison.

A much better comparison is to compare it with the AG BILL. That is a subsidized industry.

Or the energy industry. That is another industry we subsidize for national security.

Venezuela does a lot is subsidizing, you like the results?

Venezuela's problems have nothing to do with that.

Venezuela's problems have to do with that fact that the entire globalist ruling elite has banned them from buying and selling on the world market.

It is like siege warfare. Their nation is under siege, because the global elites don't approve of who their population voted for. Only a few nations have agree to trade with them.

Plus, they do not have a very diversified economy. Their entire GDP is based on the export of one resource.

IN SHORT, you are making a false equivalency fallacy.

Do you really want to compare Venezuela with the USA and expect to be taken seriously?


Goobers, that is something that the folks you often argue with always do to you, when you are arguing for the policies you support.

So you think socialism works then?

That doesn't answer the question. Do you think government should decide how society invests its wealth?

It depends. . . should we have a military?

 

[Brain357]

Venezuela does a lot is subsidizing, you like the results?

Venezuela's problems have nothing to do with that.

Venezuela's problems have to do with that fact that the entire globalist ruling elite has banned them from buying and selling on the world market.

It is like siege warfare. Their nation is under siege, because the global elites don't approve of who their population voted for. Only a few nations have agree to trade with them.

Plus, they do not have a very diversified economy. Their entire GDP is based on the export of one resource.

IN SHORT, you are making a false equivalency fallacy.

Do you really want to compare Venezuela with the USA and expect to be taken seriously?


Goobers, that is something that the folks you often argue with always do to you, when you are arguing for the policies you support.

So you think socialism works then?

That doesn't answer the question. Do you think government should decide how society invests its wealth?

It depends. . . should we have a military?

You dodged a lot...