Thank you for the explanation. The MSM long ago gave up reporting the actual news and moved to telling us what we're supposed to think which Patrick pointed out long ago but he was talking about the NYT. Unfortunately, what that means is that you can't rely on the media to tell you what's happening.
The fix for the US is simple - there has to be a penalty for offshoring work in the form of a tariff to bring it back into the country. Furthermore, the risk we have is not a spike in inflation but the kind of stagflation we saw in the '80s. The US has a staggering amount of debt and who's gonna buy it?
Jeffrey - Tarriffs can work if you have an actual industrial capacity left to protect. I think we're faced with the daunting prospect of rebuilding critical industries almost from scratch and there political uncertainty arising from "will the tariffs even be around in a few years" doesn't incentivize enough to do that. I think a better policy is to have the govenment give grants to new small/medium sized manufacturers, act as a "reliable buyer" of their output - and *then* we can talk about tarriffs.
While in a sense you're correct, there's nothing to prevent the application of tariffs to products that were built in the US and are no longer. The classic tariff is applied to any product that is not built in the home country to encourage its production. I think the "you off shore your production and you pay tariffs to bring it into the US" would provide lots of incentives. The other thing that would make a real difference is charging companies income tax on their international income.
I think I see what you are getting at. I think tariffs are a good policy when: a) You are attempting to protect a specific industry from "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies resulting from global overcapacity b) A government has cultivated an industry and wishes to protect it for a time (the "infant industry theory" - which the WTO does very much allow for - c.f. "developing nation status"). My point is that neither "a" or "b" applies in the current case (though - with proper investments - "b" *could* in time). I just don't see tariffs being effective in inducting multinationals to reshore because: #1 It invites retaliatory measures #2 The USA market is declining in importance, anyhow, and many other nations in the Western Hemisphere aren't sufficiently-developed to provide large markets. So, basically, MNCs more or less ask their customers to "bite the pillow", if you will, and just pass the costs along to their customers and shrug off any resulting reduction in demand.
There's a great jazz tune that is being played currently that has the line: once the boy's gone, he's gone. That said. my point with tariffs is that if an American company off shore's it's work for simple capitalist greed, fine. But if you bring that item back into the country, you'll pay a 100% tariff on it. This won't bring any work home but it might well reduce manufacturing flight from the US. It might also get companies to think twice about shipping their production overseas.
I'd say easy ASEAN market access would outweigh tariff concerns. The costs would just get passed along to the US customer and they'd be OK with the unit demand decline because the US market is declining in importance in relative terms.
Sadly, yours is an accurate take on the plan...particularly in regards to the actual lack of emphasis placed on truly revitalizing manufacturing or getting serious about making the R&D investments required to compete with China.
Perhaps most mystifying is the heavy emphasis on housing-related matters. Looking the past the undoubted absurdities of incorporating these in the plan, I think the utter pointless of these is best captured by Biden asking Congress to authorize a grant program that would provide funding to areas that eliminate exclusionary zoning laws. This demonstrates a near-total misunderstanding of the mentality of the folks supporting these laws. Quite simply, it is to prevent any (*ANY*) increase in the supply of housing on the market so as to provide permanent support for the appreciation of their own properties or the passive income they generate in rents. They will have no interest in any "grants" or whatever other "carrots" the Biden administration offers.
One other housing-related area that caught my eye was the rehab/retrofit provisions. Certainly it was designed to appeal to the Building Trades Unions. Members of the building trade unions remained a stalwart source of support for Pres. Trump in 2020 - even if the NABTU did ultimately back Biden. It should be mentioned that NABTU leadership is being very much pulled in two directions. Leadership, itself, is mindful that its membership is aging and they would very much like to swell their ranks and would welcome additional work with which to that. On the other hand, it's own greying membership would like to see the leadership keep its ranks as lean as possible - so as to guarantee higher hourly rates for its work. In any case, while much of this work does pay well - but these trades are suffering from a shortage of new workers. This is because the work is physically strenuous and has an attached social stigma (no doubt compounded by attitude of the modern democratic party staffed with James Carville-manufactured blowup dolls). So it must be said that more liberal immigration policies would help address these shortages. And that is not necessarily a bad thing.
Ultimately, the only saving grace of the plan is its sheer encumberances that arise from its many, ill-matched provisions. This suggests that it can be un-bundled into several smaller bills that can sink/swim on their own merits. It is somewhat encouraging that the GOP is not necessarily-against some of the infrastructure-related or R&D-related provisions. If the mammoth bill can be un-bundled there is perhaps some hope of a more meaningful and (gasp) bi-partisan jobs bill - but only if the GOP can keep its Cato Institute-huffing free-market fundamentalist wing at pay.
Thank you for this explanation of what is shrouded in lots of optimism by main stream media.
The characterization "a dog's breakfast of neoliberlism and "woke " placebo says it all. It would have been so easy for them to give something to the family home care workers who I guess
The parts on zoning (defacto caps on housing stock within a geographic area) are contradictory. According to the article they're causing price increases and homelessness but getting rid of them will cause price increases too.
The suburbs are not a solution because of their ridiculous energy footprint. Single family homes have to be maintained. They are anti community. Property taxes have to paid. They are energy vampires. Transportation to and from them is wasteful. They waste materials. If you need medical assistance, good luck! In short a hole in the ground to pour your money(and societies)into. Medium density housing(no yards) and easily accessed services are the answers .In case you wander where I am coming from I live on a family farm in the middle of nowhere in a decent brick house(1300 sq.ft. upstairs 1300sq.ft.unfinished basement downstairs).I had to be a caregiver for my disabled parents and it was a logistical and emotional nightmare. I currently earn an income just at the poverty level in Kentucky. I suppose you could say that my case is extreme but my late neighbor came from the Atlanta suburbs and he told me that he didn't know his neighbors which indicates that the suburbs are a source of isolation too. The relationships in he suburbs and high density cities are mediated by materialism, alcohol, and drugs therefore shallow, vacuous, and narcissistic.
Sorry to hear about your struggles. Agreed - there really isn't any way around it - the suburbs are the antithesis of sustainability and there's no sense of communitarianism (not to be confused with communism) to be found there. I would recommend paying a visit to the "Strong Towns" blog. It was actually started by somebody who very much considers himself a conservative - but there's lots there that progressives & conservatives can agree on. That's kind of encouraging - but there's not too much of "Strong Towns" thinking (though there is some) in the Biden plan.
Thank you for the explanation. The MSM long ago gave up reporting the actual news and moved to telling us what we're supposed to think which Patrick pointed out long ago but he was talking about the NYT. Unfortunately, what that means is that you can't rely on the media to tell you what's happening.
The fix for the US is simple - there has to be a penalty for offshoring work in the form of a tariff to bring it back into the country. Furthermore, the risk we have is not a spike in inflation but the kind of stagflation we saw in the '80s. The US has a staggering amount of debt and who's gonna buy it?
Jeffrey - Tarriffs can work if you have an actual industrial capacity left to protect. I think we're faced with the daunting prospect of rebuilding critical industries almost from scratch and there political uncertainty arising from "will the tariffs even be around in a few years" doesn't incentivize enough to do that. I think a better policy is to have the govenment give grants to new small/medium sized manufacturers, act as a "reliable buyer" of their output - and *then* we can talk about tarriffs.
While in a sense you're correct, there's nothing to prevent the application of tariffs to products that were built in the US and are no longer. The classic tariff is applied to any product that is not built in the home country to encourage its production. I think the "you off shore your production and you pay tariffs to bring it into the US" would provide lots of incentives. The other thing that would make a real difference is charging companies income tax on their international income.
I think I see what you are getting at. I think tariffs are a good policy when: a) You are attempting to protect a specific industry from "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies resulting from global overcapacity b) A government has cultivated an industry and wishes to protect it for a time (the "infant industry theory" - which the WTO does very much allow for - c.f. "developing nation status"). My point is that neither "a" or "b" applies in the current case (though - with proper investments - "b" *could* in time). I just don't see tariffs being effective in inducting multinationals to reshore because: #1 It invites retaliatory measures #2 The USA market is declining in importance, anyhow, and many other nations in the Western Hemisphere aren't sufficiently-developed to provide large markets. So, basically, MNCs more or less ask their customers to "bite the pillow", if you will, and just pass the costs along to their customers and shrug off any resulting reduction in demand.
There's a great jazz tune that is being played currently that has the line: once the boy's gone, he's gone. That said. my point with tariffs is that if an American company off shore's it's work for simple capitalist greed, fine. But if you bring that item back into the country, you'll pay a 100% tariff on it. This won't bring any work home but it might well reduce manufacturing flight from the US. It might also get companies to think twice about shipping their production overseas.
I'd say easy ASEAN market access would outweigh tariff concerns. The costs would just get passed along to the US customer and they'd be OK with the unit demand decline because the US market is declining in importance in relative terms.
Sadly, yours is an accurate take on the plan...particularly in regards to the actual lack of emphasis placed on truly revitalizing manufacturing or getting serious about making the R&D investments required to compete with China.
Perhaps most mystifying is the heavy emphasis on housing-related matters. Looking the past the undoubted absurdities of incorporating these in the plan, I think the utter pointless of these is best captured by Biden asking Congress to authorize a grant program that would provide funding to areas that eliminate exclusionary zoning laws. This demonstrates a near-total misunderstanding of the mentality of the folks supporting these laws. Quite simply, it is to prevent any (*ANY*) increase in the supply of housing on the market so as to provide permanent support for the appreciation of their own properties or the passive income they generate in rents. They will have no interest in any "grants" or whatever other "carrots" the Biden administration offers.
One other housing-related area that caught my eye was the rehab/retrofit provisions. Certainly it was designed to appeal to the Building Trades Unions. Members of the building trade unions remained a stalwart source of support for Pres. Trump in 2020 - even if the NABTU did ultimately back Biden. It should be mentioned that NABTU leadership is being very much pulled in two directions. Leadership, itself, is mindful that its membership is aging and they would very much like to swell their ranks and would welcome additional work with which to that. On the other hand, it's own greying membership would like to see the leadership keep its ranks as lean as possible - so as to guarantee higher hourly rates for its work. In any case, while much of this work does pay well - but these trades are suffering from a shortage of new workers. This is because the work is physically strenuous and has an attached social stigma (no doubt compounded by attitude of the modern democratic party staffed with James Carville-manufactured blowup dolls). So it must be said that more liberal immigration policies would help address these shortages. And that is not necessarily a bad thing.
Ultimately, the only saving grace of the plan is its sheer encumberances that arise from its many, ill-matched provisions. This suggests that it can be un-bundled into several smaller bills that can sink/swim on their own merits. It is somewhat encouraging that the GOP is not necessarily-against some of the infrastructure-related or R&D-related provisions. If the mammoth bill can be un-bundled there is perhaps some hope of a more meaningful and (gasp) bi-partisan jobs bill - but only if the GOP can keep its Cato Institute-huffing free-market fundamentalist wing at pay.
That last sentence should end with "free-market fundamentalist wing at bay".
Thank you for this explanation of what is shrouded in lots of optimism by main stream media.
The characterization "a dog's breakfast of neoliberlism and "woke " placebo says it all. It would have been so easy for them to give something to the family home care workers who I guess
are discarded because of little political clout.
The parts on zoning (defacto caps on housing stock within a geographic area) are contradictory. According to the article they're causing price increases and homelessness but getting rid of them will cause price increases too.
Techno Feudalism ftw.
The suburbs are not a solution because of their ridiculous energy footprint. Single family homes have to be maintained. They are anti community. Property taxes have to paid. They are energy vampires. Transportation to and from them is wasteful. They waste materials. If you need medical assistance, good luck! In short a hole in the ground to pour your money(and societies)into. Medium density housing(no yards) and easily accessed services are the answers .In case you wander where I am coming from I live on a family farm in the middle of nowhere in a decent brick house(1300 sq.ft. upstairs 1300sq.ft.unfinished basement downstairs).I had to be a caregiver for my disabled parents and it was a logistical and emotional nightmare. I currently earn an income just at the poverty level in Kentucky. I suppose you could say that my case is extreme but my late neighbor came from the Atlanta suburbs and he told me that he didn't know his neighbors which indicates that the suburbs are a source of isolation too. The relationships in he suburbs and high density cities are mediated by materialism, alcohol, and drugs therefore shallow, vacuous, and narcissistic.
Sorry to hear about your struggles. Agreed - there really isn't any way around it - the suburbs are the antithesis of sustainability and there's no sense of communitarianism (not to be confused with communism) to be found there. I would recommend paying a visit to the "Strong Towns" blog. It was actually started by somebody who very much considers himself a conservative - but there's lots there that progressives & conservatives can agree on. That's kind of encouraging - but there's not too much of "Strong Towns" thinking (though there is some) in the Biden plan.