OT but: If you're interested in first contact stories, you might check out Peter Cawdron. For a quick writer of pop-sci-fi, he's pretty good. He's taken on first-contact from 20+ different starting points and has a bunch of books on Kindle Unlimited. To the lay-person, his fiction seems well researched and real-as-possible (given the requirements of the story). Sort of Peter Watt's "Blindsight" without the fireworks/flourishes
Putting aside the good-plane/bad-plane discussion, this program is the poster child for one of my pet wishes: that the costs of government programs would be expressed in $/tax-payer. There are about 100M tax payers in the US; this program is expected to cost about $1,500,000M; so the F35 program is expected to cost about $15,000 per tax payer. True: that's over 50 years; still, un-discounted, that's $300/year/tax-payer.
I'm not arguing for or against these programs; I'm arguing for expressing them in comprehensible terms. $6,000,000,000,000 societal total; or $60,000 for you. Do you expect to receive $15,000 of value from the F35 program? I'm not sure I won't: perhaps it'll keep oil/energy prices stable and I spent well more than $300/year on energy...
I think the stats for COVID site are very misleading, particularly when you compare them to defense spending. The majority of "COVID bailout" according to that website is "Federal Reserve Actions"-- just the vagueness of that statement should give you pause.
I am not saying Federal Reserve actions don't have a cost, but comparing that to defense spending is apples to oranges. The federal reserve buys securities and created SPVs. You could say that is a cost but by some measures the money the Federal Reserve "spent" made money in the 2009 crises. If that were true this time your cost per tax payer is way, way off.
Or to put it in more plain language, you are comparing the cost to tax payers if the US government bought $60,000 of Lockheed martin stock as opposed to paying Lockheed Martin $15,000 for a fighter that doesn't seem to work well. It's more complicated than that even, but still it is a terrible and biased comparison that you are making.
For that, you need to calculate the cost of every US govt program and calculate usage costs. Very complicated.
However, this statement is confusing to me. Do you agree to a bailout, as a society, to eventually get all of it back?
And, I also take issue with 100M tax payers. Are these Individual Income Tax payers? If so, what about all the non income tax payers and companiss that pay taxes? For every item you buy, some amount goes to the government in the form of sales tax.
And ultimately, what does the govt spend money on? You and your fellow citizens. Sure, now you are in a position to say you pay more taxes than the govt provides services, but if your kid turns out to be poor and homeless, the govt ought to take care of them, and they pay no taxes while enjoying govt services. So if you compute what you get back, would it be fair to say you have to take multi generational values?
Normalized: $60k (get the GAO to provide a standardized number) + interpretation + understanding.
I get that it's imperfect but I have a hard time understanding how the "un-normalized" version is more-perfect or more comprehensible than the "normalized" version.
I suspect politicians would hate my suggestion: they've acclimated us to nonsense numbers. Per Dirksen (maybe): “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." Again, I'm not pro/con high-speed rail but: CA probably has 15M taxpayers; estimates of high-speed rail ranged from $30,000M-$100,000M; how in the world was a CA taxpayer to recoup $3,000-$10,000 of cost? Put in those terms, it's a lot easier for me to think about the proposition.
I definitely think a Covid bailout was necessary. I do have some questions about where my $60k went...
Very interesting proposition. Small side note - a lot of this $300/year/tax-payer is flowing back into paying US salaries in various states... which is probably recursively why the ticket price is so high in the first place (cost-plus, politicians and all).
Also, the $60,000/tax-payer Covid ticket price (though I find that source questionable) is missing averaging out over multiple years as you said yourself. Needs to be consistent with the other number.
I take issue with comparing a single project to a generic relief. A fair comparison would be to only compare a single stimulus effort (say the $1000 one). Or if you want to compare the total covid effort, compare it with the total military budget.
This type of comparison reminds me of how people abuse statistics by comparing a city (or even a neighborhood) to another state (or even a country); say the average New Yorker vs. the average Swede.
Sure, it's $60k per tax payer by just dividing the total paid by the tax payer cardinality. And in that sense, that much of the federal budget that you have a voice for was allocated in that way.
However, comparing that number to how much tax you're paying in a given year is wildly inaccurate.
The mean income tax paid in the US last year was ~$15k, but the median is closer to ~$5k [0]
The ultra wealthy pay very disproportionately more of the total income tax and skew the mean upward significantly.
Therefore, the average US tax payer would have contributed likely far less than $300/year at something more like <$100/year.
I've always wished for (and wanted to develop) a calculator which would take in your taxes paid, and calculate exactly how many dollars and cents of your tax bill went to which programs. I'm sure the results would shock most Americans.
There's a certain sense of satisfaction in being able to see in slightly more real terms what my tax is being spent on.
But it's misleading, perhaps deliberately so. The money is not being spent on "Health" but on the "Health department". What percentage of that money actually delivers health, and what merely funds the bureaucracy?
Here in the UK only about a third of defence spending goes on the armed forces themselves. Another third goes on service pensions, which is fine, but running the MoD itself is a full third of the budget! It wouldn’t surprise me if the same was true of the NHS.
The problem with that is that there is no direct correlation between tax receipts and budget outlays. Money being spent in 2021 is not being "paid for" by taxes received in 2021, or for that matter in 2022, 2023, or any other particular year. That's the theoretical problem; the practical problems you encounter as a result include how you deal with programs that are technically 'paid for' by specific taxes (do you try to present those separately or exclude them?), how you account for budget deficits (do you present a breakdown that adds up to >100% of the tax bill?), and how you deal with tax expenditures.
I mean, forgive me for being obtuse, but...why do we even pay taxes at all? Like, I understand the "prole logic" of a balance between income and expenditures, but if the government doesn't seem to care, why should I?
In the longer term, the ability of taxpayers to pay taxes is a signal of the nation's ability to produce enough to meet its debt. It's just spread over an extended period.
Paying taxes is a form of civic participation. Sounds crazy, but reading about the system Russia uses makes me leery of forcing the government to make itself financially independent of its citizenry.
Theirs is a system called "tributary taxation." How it works is, anybody who is anybody in Russia has a boss. Not a boss like you have a boss, a political boss, think Boss Tweed back in the day. That boss has a boss, who has a boss, and so on until you have the one person in Russia all this money flows to, President Putin.
How much do you pay to your boss? As much as you wish/can. This isn't the mob. The price for falling behind isn't Ivan turning your knees into baseballs. You simply find yourself slowly forced out of political relevance. Pay to play at it's highest and finest. At a certain level you become untouchable by low-level cops and the like.
The government getting its operating budget from us makes the government accountable to citizens in the end. What we call 'corruption' becomes the norm otherwise.
There’s something similar for the UK here[0], but my guess is that most people don’t care beyond “defence”, which in the UK is 5% and the US is 15%. As others have mentioned though, there’s potentially a pretty good multiplier effect [1] on military hardware acquisition.
Not exactly what you're describing, but here's where someone did a fairly detailed analysis of which federal, state, and local programs their salary goes to using a Sankey diagram:
> Do you expect to receive $15,000 of value from the F35 program? I'm not sure I won't: perhaps it'll keep oil/energy prices stable and I spent well more than $300/year on energy...
But from the article
> The Air Force alone wanted nearly 1,800 F-35s to replace aging F-16s and A-10s and constitute the low end of a low-high fighter mix, with 180 twin-engine F-22s making up the high end.
> Fifteen years after the F-35’s first flight, the Air Force has just 250 of the jets.
I'd say it's just as valid of an argument to make in this case that I'm not sure I won't see more than $60,000 of value out of efforts to prevent the economic infrastructure of the U.S. from crumbling, especially amortized over 50 years ($1,200/yr in preserved income or purchasing power).
I don't disagree that it's a decent frame of reference to use when looking at government programs...but it's important to apply the same level of rigor to measuring output value.
yeah, but you're cleverly (or nefariously) pitching this as both a neutral unit of measure - say, $/square meter in the US - then right away using it as a non-neutral measurement based on the individual (/your/ $60k - as if it was "ours" to begin with). that's not really appropriate.
but why in the world does it need to cost that much?
what's wrong with just using the jets we already have. I mean we have like a gazillion of those things. what percentage of the military/armed forces is currently being used or has been used over the last 10 years. I'm guessing it's a very small percentage.
Because the U.S. military basically runs a massive socialized jobs program and every politician works to get a piece of it for their state.
No politician wants to be the one to make the case to shut down the factories that produce these things, even when the military has advised Congress to do so [1].
What I’ve always found strange about this is that there would be far better areas to spend money that would directly benefit society. Education, rail, manufacturing modernization, health.
Instead we have jets we don’t need, and tanks sitting in a desert unused.
Additional housing would even pay itself back on its own. Yes the government would take on debt but it would also receive rent payments that pay the debt off. The economic benefit of more housing in large cities is undeniable. Lots of people move to the city to work there, the end result is that you have employed both the construction industry and the future resident. There would be a net tax gain even though its a jobs stimulus program.
what's wrong with just using the jets we already have.
Two words: metal fatigue. Every airframe only has a finite amount of hours it can fly before its structure becomes too weak. Fighters in particular that regularly perform high-g manoeuvres. So they have to be replaced anyway.
The war in Afghanistan saw Western militaries burning off airframe-hours at a phenomenal rate using expensive fighters designed for neer-peer conflicts to drop dumb bombs, when you could have done the job for a fraction of the cost with simple propeller planes like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano
> what's wrong with just using the jets we already have.
The problems with the F-15/F-16/F-18 is that Chinese and Russian missiles might be able to shoot them down more easily than the F-22 or F-35, since the F-22 and F-35 are stealthed.
The problem with the F-22 and F-35 is high unit cost, so they can't have as many as they'd like.
It's also possible that their stealth might not work so well on future Russian/Chinese radars, for example they might use different frequencies. You can be sure both those countries are working on countermeasures to stealth aircraft.
Possibly the solution will be an unmanned aircraft. This would be able to pull >10g manouvers, which aircraft with a pilot in can't.
Restarting production, long after all the workers have been laid off and moved to other cities, would take decades. If those workers don't keep working, the capability is lost. The timeframe for recovery makes this dangerous.
I'll pay $300/year for global security any day of the week. Honestly, I don't give a shit if it costs $10,000/year, I want the U.S. being the global police because I am most comfortable with the status quo.
As a hardcore leftist, even I have to admit there are benefits of neoliberal policy to a strong internationally present military that at least pretends to uphold human rights and has a bunch of other countries that also pretend the same. It’s better than the alternative.
I think the war in Yemen is a good case study of the downsides of the US as global police. It is a war that was only possible through the US and UK supplying arms, and was prosecuted by a nation that doesn't even pretend to uphold human rights.
This is also pretty typical - while many western nations 'care' about human rights, they don't see any problem with arming client regimes who are often gratuitously sadistic, genocidal, etc.
I'm also not sure where human rights come into the picture when you consider the various US wars in the last century. All of them (especially the Korean war) were extremely brutal to civilian populations, and the prosecution of all of them (except maybe the 1990 gulf war?) skirted very close to the line on war crimes, or crossed that line entirely. I don't think there was even lip service paid to human rights in this period.
The human rights track record of the USA military should for sure include:
* Arming the Saudi regime with intent to sustain the horrors in Yemen
* Extrajudicial killings with drones in various sovereign non-warring nations such as Pakistan and Libya often with far more civilian casualties then combatant.
* Illegal indefinite detention and torture in offshore prison such as Guantanamo.
Those are the human rights horrors which the USA military is currently engaging in. History shows us that it is capable of far worse and there is no reason to believe it won’t engage in in the near future.
As far as security goes there is little reason to believe that it extends any further then to secure the interest of private companies engaging in foreign affairs. It seems to me that the human rights narrative of GPs is entirely fiction.
The alternative being... the same invasion of sovereign nations to keep the industry-military complex going, just without the pretense of caring for human rights?
I think I agree but with the point "Isn't this a solved problem?" I'm not sure if the first library should be written in C, Rust, C++, etc but it seems as though very similar libraries-but-in-different-languages are being repeatedly written.
I certainly get that a good library yesterday might not be good today or that an existing library's style might not meet this language's style but I doubt the need to rewrite existing libraries so often. Even with the much-maligned PHP, libraries were frequently bindings to other libraries.
Just in case someone RTFA and gets worried: this is breathless FUD and could be handled much more usefully in some other fashion that invites discussion of pros/cons (such as is happening on HN but I doubt the gist will be updated...). Wayland is an 0.99:1.00 replacement for x11. I would appreciate a succinct "Wayland changed X, Y and Z and that will affect applications A, B, C" but TFA isn't that.
Much like systemd, Wayland sounded as though it might have some serious wrinkles but those, as with systemd, never really materialized for me (a power user on a powerful machine). Most issues I experienced were transient as applications caught up with the switch (mostly screen sharing). Even though it's not too important to me, games (wine and native) are working better than ever on Linux (and Wayland).
I think the two persistent "issues" I've seen are: graphical ssh (X-over-ssh); and, maybe, others screen drawing on my screen in Slack calls.
I trust the arguments from the x11/Wayland developers and, AFAICT, Wayland has been a Good Thing but some eggs were broken to make the omelette...
I'm baffled that any developer uses a Mac. I know, I know... BSD, 3-finger swipe, but-they-wrote-the-ux-guide. But I've been running Debian Testing for 15 years now with nary a problem (on thinkpads, latitudes and desktops) I guess I'm weird in that I think gnome 3 is swell.
CI handles xCode. Otherwise, my 2x 42" 4k monitors, Gnome and works-here-same-as-the-cloud self reads these articles on puzzlement.
I can't count the times I've helped developers deal with oh-yeah-brew-is-weird-about-libpq. Now this? It's the avocado-toast of developer workstations...
> I've been running Debian Testing for 15 years now with nary a problem
I ran Linux on the desktop for 19 years, through years-long stretches of Slackware, RedHat, SuSE, Gentoo, and Ubuntu. Obviously, I was (and still am) a huge fan, but if you've managed 15 years of Linux on the desktop with "nary a problem," you have had the most unbelievable luck of any human on the planet, and should start buying lottery tickets.
After running Gentoo for several years, and switching to Ubuntu, I was amazed at how much time I was saving not dealing with portage. Fair enough. I mean, I was asking for it by using a source distro, but I had that same sigh of relief when I finally bought a Mac, and realized that I was still doing a lot of maintenance to keep Ubuntu happy, even though it was (obviously) a huge improvement over Gentoo. I just couldn't see it until it was gone.
I held on to a Dell running Ubuntu for two years because I couldn't convince myself to shell out north of $2k for a comparable MacBook (I'd had a MacBook before).
Then after one of the kernel updates the "resetting rcs0 for hang on rcs0" bug started happening, I had to downgrade to an earlier kernel, then Ubuntu 20 came with Snap everywhere, then covid came and I started having Zoom meetings all over the place and my mic would randomly stop working and I started using a 4K screen and noticed how choppy scrolling is and that YouTube stutters hard in fullscreen, then there was a memory leak in Firefox, semi-functional display scaling, the machine sometimes wouldn't wake up from deep sleep...
Then the M1 Macs came out and I got an Air. I've been using it for a month and it's heaven. It's like coming home. It gets work done, lets me have fun, watch videos, play some games and gets out of the way.
I mean, as someone that's been running Linux full time at work for two decades I still don't have copy/paste working consistently between applications.
This is a good, balanced article. I've been of a similar mind for over a year now.
The chances of the CCP releasing a self-harming bioweapon in order to harm the US seems silly. But an accident involving a well-intentioned gain-of-function experiment seems quite possible and was something that the US was concerned about with its own gain-of-function research.
In any case, this, like so much of this other nonsense around Covid [lockdowns in Contra Costa County when the major hospitals were empty-ish; no gradual escalation of lockdown given mid-January knowledge of Covid], seems pretty amenable to a calm, clear analysis...
Hypothesis | Evidence | Likelihood
------------------------------+----------------------------------------+-----------------
CCP Virus | [That'd be 360 degree dumb of the CCP] | *low*
Gain of function lab accident | [Existing concerns and experience] | *moderate*
Zoonotic transfer | [No likely vector for extant virus] | *moderate-low*
The "likely vector" would be the millions of peasants living near bat caves in rural China (who actually have already been shown to have antibodies to bat viruses). And some of whom traveled to the market.
So I would upgrade that quite a bit from "moderate-low." (One of the researchers in this NPR article seems to rate it as an obvious suspect, so I'd call that "high likelihood.")
Those millions of peasants living near bat caves would have traveled to thousands of markets all over China, but the virus originated at the one market in China that is basically across the street from a virus lab? It's not impossible, but my money is on the lab.
A whole 7 miles away? Wow It's almost as far as i go to my office every day. Or to some shops in the town centre. Or various other "everyday activities".
> Chinese authorities and experts are at odds about the origin of the ongoing coronavirus outbreak.
I'm not saying this argument is invalid in general but it's important to assume that we know next to nothing about this whole situation and that the things that we know are potentially false pieces of information pushed by the CCP.
They've tried to sweep this under the rug and control the discussion from day one and this happens to be something they're incredibly good at.
The BBC article is a summarizing a linked study reputable enough to be published in the Lancet.
Also, the CCP is quite good at using brute force to impose its will within China, but they've been signally unsuccessful in crafting propaganda for Western consumption.
They've been incredibly successful at soft propaganda in the West to craft an image of China that makes it look better than it is, while also being successful at hiding the things they don't want us to see.
"AIDS was first clinically reported on June 5, 1981, with five cases in the United States"
"Both HIV-1 and HIV-2 are believed to have originated in non-human primates in West-central Africa and were transferred to humans in the early 20th century."
If HIV, a relatively less infectious virus, can make its way across the Atlantic Ocean to land on America shores, I wouldn't be surprised SARS-CoV-2 could do the same. Another explanation could be that SARS-CoV-2 is a lot more common than we think --- many people might have caught it before but it didn't manage to spread, but this time the virus just hit the jackpot.
According to the article, the bat caves are nearly a thousand miles away. It seems unlikely peasants were traveling a thousand miles for the purpose of visting the market.
It also presents some reasons why bat viruses on their own were unlikely to become as contagious as COVID, citing the example of RaTG13's discovery.
So the "zoonotic transfer from bats" theory requires an extraordinary new strain (possible!) to travel a thousand miles before spreading enough to be detected.
It’s too late to edit, but I’d like to ask downvoters to respond instead of downvoting. The submission references and contradicts the information provided in the GPs link and discusses how the politicization of the origin led to these organizations making much stronger statements than the evidence warranted. I cited some of the information the OP mentions that contradicts assertions made by the GP.
If I am wrong or misinformed, I would like to know it. The submission is an excellent article. I have no dog in this fight but it did shift the needle of uncertainty for me, particularly when I learned about prior leaks and the suppression of investigations in China. It’s a long article but worth the read.
Many people over estimate our capabilities regarding manipulation of biological systems. A gain function is extremely difficult to get right. It is more likely that zoonotic transfer occurred. Either within a wet market or people operating in that industry or a lab worker accidentally exposing him/herself.
Sequence analysis show a unique mutation that increased receptor binding affinity that was not predicted by previous models. It just shows, nature knows best.
I find this debate extremely stupid. We always known that as natural habitats are being encroached upon, the more likely diseases like this will emerge. By focusing on our human conspiracies, I am afraid we will ignore Nature's conspiracy to get us.
Yet another hypothesis being pushed by the CCP party-state is the seafood imports hypothesis. Although the motivation behind CCP's push is questionable, this hypothesis shall be treated seriously, given that in the early investigation before the ban, signs of the virus were detected at stores selling seafood instead of stores selling illegal games.
The third most common death from firearms in the USA is accidental discharge. This is where people have firearms, are trained in using them, but some circumstance led to the firearm being discharged without intent and injuring or killing someone.
There’s every reason to believe that a country attempting to develop bio weapons may accidentally release that bio weapon against its own people for the same reason: mistakes were made.
It may also be the case that the bio weapon was successfully deployed in the USA months before some unsuspecting American went on their tour of China thinking they will get over that mild flu in the clean air of Wuhan.
The USA health care system is basically designed to ensure that a pandemic will spread as quickly as possible, since the expense of medical care means people will actively avoid seeing a doctor unless they are literally dying.
So engineer a virus that affects wet membranes, limit its symptoms to “mild flu” and you will get maximal transmission even without propaganda suggesting that no action needs to be taken to control the disease because it’s not really that bad.
So in this hypothetical scenario it is not “360 dumb of the CCP” at all. They know how dangerous it is and how to contain it when it inevitably arrives on their shores. They have a vaccine but they won’t use it until a believable amount of time has passed. The future of warfare isn’t drones circling in the skies with guns pointed at the people on the ground.
COVID is a terrible bioweapon. It's fragile, with an outer lipid membrane that has to be preserved. It's not very lethal to people of military age, and spreads readily between people making collateral damage inevitable.
One of the best bioweapons is Tularemia, and part of that reason is its general lack of lethality. It temporarily renders the exposed population incapable of putting up a good fight, but it kills relatively few. Escape isn't that big a deal (because again, it's not very lethal), and it's easy enough to inoculate one's own troops against the particular flavor being used.
Yeah, I just found that statement so weird that I had to reply.
If I had to guess first and second are deliberate suicide and deliberate homicide. But I suspect there's a huge fall from those numbers to what is the third and presumably last rank.
Many of the "accidental discharge" deaths are actually intentional suicides or homicides but the investigators just couldn't prove what happened. And unfortunately it's common for people with no real training to possess firearms.
Not disagreeing with your Likelihoods but I'm not sure your evidence really makes sense. It does not really follow that a self-harm would always be avoided, the game of chess is all about sacrifice. Perhaps China thinks the West is short-sighted and would be politically bound to act against its long term interest, so why not? Maybe there are other reasons why you think the "CCP Virus" hypothesis is 360 stupid besides "self-harm"?
Wouldn't it be way easier and more logical to start the infection on a foreign soil? All the previous similar epidemics were successfully contained before reaching Europe, and if there was not for quite serious fuck ups in the beginning (Italian dude not even showing up on the meetings, etc.) perhaps even this one could have been stopped early on. So if it was China wanting to hurt US, then they'd have to be seriously stupid to first infect themselves and hope it will somehow reach US over Europe. It'd be like a terrorist who sends a bomb to their own address in hope that it will somehow eventually reach their enemies. It makes zero sense.
Not really wanting to play devil's advocate too much longer ... but if this virus popped up in let's say Spain rather than China wouldn't we wonder how the fuck it got there, what's the vector? I'm not sure if these things can be fingerprinted, would intelligence anyway trace it to China? Perhaps (to China) a clear oops backstory is more preferable to a murky "this thing definitely came from China but how?" backstory.
So the solution to that is to make it extremely suspicious by releasing the virus in Wuhan, city far away from the bat caves where they have a virus lab and which isn't really well known for outside travel?
Wouldn't it be much more logical to release it in one of the southern cities, Hong Kong or Macau. Hong Kong would be a perfect candidate as it would allow China to institute strict lockdown in the city which had decent amount of protests in the past years.
> wouldn't we wonder how the fuck it got there, what's the vector?
Apparently we wouldn't.
There are two possibilities: either the virus really was circulating in Spain in March 2019, or the result is a false positive. I'm still waiting for either confirmation, or a retraction of the paper. Why the lack of curiosity?
Given that it took a year for the virus to have any effect in Spain, then all of a sudden it was very intense, wouldn't it be more likely that the test was botched?
> wouldn't it be more likely that the test was botched?
That's what I want to find out. From what you just wrote, the probability the test result is correct is at least 96%. But, as the result is so surprising and the tests aren't 100% reliable, it should still be checked.
You shouldn't assume it's a false positive simply because it doesn't fit in with our current understanding. Maybe our current understanding is wrong.
"Then they ran tests on samples taken between January 2018 and December 2019 and found the presence of the virus genome in one of them, collected on March 12, 2019."
If they did 100 samples you would expect between 1 and 4 false positives. (It doesn't go into detail about how many, but it's clearly more than one).
This is not my literal belief; it is only a logical extension of the discussion so . . .
If covid mostly kills old or otherwise compromised individuals then a socialist country could see it in their interest to release a virus that eliminates the least productive part of the population. It would not be as much self harm as an exercise to increase the strength of the whole.
> then a socialist country [..] eliminates the least productive part of the population
I swear I heard some of my left leaning friends argue that a capitalist country would reason that way (and I'm pretty sure they would point historical anectodetes to prove their point)
Could it be, perhaps, that such conclusions about how appealing the opposite political belief is just the product of sectarian thinking and fear mongering? Humans are generally decent people who care about each other; and also often ruthless people who couldn't care less about the well-being of the fellow citizens. The only correlation I see between these two behavioral traits and the political doctrine, is the circumstance where a person is born and the environment where events unfold.
Where the hell was the research on who it mostly kills conducted? You don't look at the DNA sequence and go "ah yes, this will get everyone over 65..."
Was there any evidence of say, the interment camps operating as biosecure facilities while they experimented on finding out mortalities?
]] Dr. Paabo said the DNA segment may account in part for why people of Bangladeshi descent are dying at a high rate of Covid-19 in the United Kingdom.
This looks a bit like the old (2000s) work of Leopard Logic or Tensilica. Exciting stuff.
One important note (based on some comments here): generally, these in-CPU FPGAs have very fast reconfiguration. Not sure if it's 1, 10 or 100 cycles but it's not milliseconds. Actually, (in past examples) configuration might take milliseconds but it would load a number of planes of configurations: plane 0 might be MP3 audio device; plane 1 might be MPEG2 video device. Then reconfiguration is: switch to plane 1.
This AMD proposal looks like it's much more tightly integrated into the CPU so it's got to be even faster. Combine that with the deep knowledge of processor internals you'll have to have to code for this thing and I'm having a hard time seeing you and me having much luck tinkering. This is probably 99.99% data center with gnarly NDAs and field support.
Okay. I just bought Bucatini off of Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00YQ7CYWU (only 1 left, blah, blah)). I'm not much of a pasta eater but, damn, that was a fun read...
"Instead of drawing down our gold reserves, however, we gradually draw down our domestic manufacturing base and it gets replaced piece-by-piece in foreign countries."
To me, this is the money shot. I hadn't seen this expressed before and it makes perfect sense. I'm baffled that we (the US) caused this to happen to the US. I'm (unhappily) registered Republican but I argued vociferously to a Dem friend in 2000 that our inability to manufacture critical components was going to kill us. Kind of literally: AFAIK, the last LCD panel manufacturer in the US closed around then and we could no longer manufacture LCD for our military vehicles... (Even if this anecdote is untrue, the point remains valid...) I argued that, even in the presence of free trade, a country should have the ability to tariff imports to the extent that that country could maintain a 25% (or something) domestic market share.
My father was one of the last tool makers in the US working for Molex. They spent years teaching the Chinese, the Chinese would disassemble all molds sent over to China and often break them, so my fathers team would have to fix / rebuild them.
They spent years training the Chinese side-by-side in the US.
In the end they still haven’t exactly caught up to the quality we had in the US. However, they now have 5x the tool & die makers in China.
To compete, you really do have to cut minimum wage. You have to loosen regulations, and importantly, you have to do massive tariffs / sanctions on China for the next decade.
There are enough people still here to teach and expand the Industry. However, if you don’t start now. Like today. We won’t ever recover. Once enough manufacturing is gone, it’ll be impossible to come back - we are almost there.
You are competing against a foreign power who uses slaves. You either let free people work for what ever wage they can achieve or we risk becoming slaves ourselves.
> To compete, you really do have to cut minimum wage. You have to loosen regulations, and importantly, you have to do massive tariffs / sanctions on China for the next decade.
Part of the problem here is that the existence of some kind of universal "more regulations / less regulations" slider is an illusion. It allows the problem to be cast in partisan terms when that isn't the problem at all, because the problem isn't more or less lines of regulatory code but rather higher or lower regulatory efficiency.
Some regulations save a thousand lives at a 0.02% increase in costs. Repealing those is bad. Enacting them is good. Some regulations save two lives at a 5000% increase in cost, which could equally be saved by some less expensive regulation. Enacting those is bad. Repealing them is good.
The real problem is that politicians lack the qualifications and incentives to do this well. If good rules don't exist, then someone gets hurt and there is a call for "more rules" rather than "better rules". Politicians who don't know what they're doing pass bad rules. The bad rules cause costs to exceed what they are in China, so manufacturing moves to China. Then the local lobby for improving the rules evaporates because there are no longer local manufacturers to propose or lobby for more efficient rules, and the continued existence of those rules on the books causes no more to form.
We clearly need to throw away the existing rules -- they're not working -- the question is, how do we actually get better ones?
The problem here -- and perhaps the main problem in all our politics -- is that large swaths of the electorate do not understand the concept of second order effects. Regulations are always good because they consider only the first order effect. That is, the goal of the regulation is usually a laudable one that everyone would support. But you have to look at the costs and unintended consequences of the regulation to really know whether it's a good idea.
This is something that eludes most people, especially among progressives.
The long term studies say our political leadership largely ignores the desires of the electorate. This make the problem more likely that our political leadership likely understands the second order effects, but ignores the long term effects chasing short term gain.
I think many more people understand second-order effects than you imply, but I think they understand that those second-order effects hurt certain groups of Americans more than others.
> Some regulations save a thousand lives at a 0.02% increase in costs. Repealing those is bad. Enacting them is good. Some regulations save two lives at a 5000% increase in cost, which could equally be saved by some less expensive regulation. Enacting those is bad. Repealing them is good.
Not to get political but this reminded me of covid-19. Masks and social distancing are an obvious 0.02% increase in costs that save a thousand lives. Lockdowns and extended stay-at-home orders and shutting down businesses so that we start needing to send out trillions upon trillions of stimulus cash to keep companies and people afloat start to cross into "save 2 lives at a 5000% increase in cost" territory
I totally agree that lockdowns are super expensive, and should only be used as a last resort, but I think you're missing the purpose of lockdowns. The purpose is not to save the lives of <however many people are dying right now>. The purpose is to bring the R number <https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52473523> below one, so that the number of sick people doesn't increase to the point where the health care system is overwhelmed (which would lead to a substantially increased death rate).
Taiwan is an example of a country that managed to eliminate covid-19 without lockdowns, so it is possible, but part of their success is likely due to the fact that the authorities acted very early to impose strict quarantine rules and contact tracing (when there were fewer than 10 new cases per day!) AFAIK every other country that has managed to eliminate community transmission has done so via lockdowns.
The purpose of lockdowns and other methods to fight with covid-19 was to keep old people alive for few more months.
'The observed temporary excess mortality likely arises because people in vulnerable groups die weeks or months earlier than they would otherwise, due to the timing and severity of the unusual external event.'
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.11.20229708v...
That is not the point and never was ! When your hospital is saturated by people that ultimately will survive but need 3 to 4 weeks to recover, you're going to die from anything but covid.
You're in a car crash? To bad hospital is saturated.
You got 4th degree burn in a burning building? To bad hospital is saturated.
Sweden did not need lockdown because, like Asia, people there were more disciplined. Numbers show road traffic dropped significantly during the first semester : people stayed home without being ordered to. Some culture will never do that by themselves.
Youngers are less affected but some absolutely do need hospitalization. Reality is not as black or white as you're making it.
The situation is like that in Poland ... and the solution is geronticide ?
I agree with your view wrt to regulations, but doesn't the article paint a different story? I'm wondering if I understood the article wrong -
As I understand it, the US status as a global reserve currency requires us to maintain a perpetual trade deficit - other countries need dollars and we must give it to them. This is done by buying goods from overseas which has eroded our manufacturing base, as the foreign demand for the dollar is greater than the local demand (which means there is a cheaper manufacturing market).
I'm not sure what regulation you could enact here that wouldn't severely depresses other sectors as they exist today.
The status as a reserve currency requires dollars to flow into other countries, but that doesn't mean it has to be in exchange for manufactured goods. Example: US individuals or businesses buy real estate or stakes in local businesses in foreign countries with US dollars, causing US dollars to flow into those countries. Rents collected from the properties or businesses are used to buy more properties or businesses rather than being extracted from the country.
Labor is likely the most plentiful asset any developing country has as well as it's a system that doesn't require much legal overhead. Manufacturing goods would be the easiest asset any country could produce - trying to own an asset in a foreign nation is an expensive endeavor that requires military might (the middle east probably being the most pertinent example). Trying to collect rents requires the maintenance of an international legal system that will rule fairly. I'm not saying it's impossible, but that manufacturing requires way less overhead to maintain.
The flip side of a current account deficit is a capital account surplus. To the extent that the informal notion of a "global reserve currency" means anything economically, that's perhaps the best description of it. Such an investment surplus would tend to improve the country's economic base over time, far more than implied by any direct effect of the trade deficit.
I agree with you, but one point is (and clearly these are not accurate numbers you posted) these 0.02% cost increases add up. One regulation may only increase the cost 0.02%, but 1000 at the same industry increases it 20%. And all of them increase the cost of entry. If you increase the cost of entry, then you’ll get less competition as smaller business that could turn into flourishing enterprises simply never take off or even get started because someone in their garage can’t find a profitable path. Or afford a lawyer to explain the legal hoops you have to jump through. Recently I was quoted $10k to have a lawyer explain to me 2 points about importing liquor. The result, I didn’t start the business. This is more of a problem IMO
I wonder if import taxation that reflects externalities (pollution) and costs that we carry to reduce suffering (child labor, minimum wage) would make a difference.
Rules on paper aren’t rules in reality. Enforcement of law, and the way it’s experienced (or not) is far more important than what’s written in the law books, and the enforcement part is much less transparent, and impossible to know at the time the rule is passed.
Without a very strong (and therefore expensive) social security net, “Letting people work for whatever wage they can achieve” is slavery. See 19th century Britain
Germany still has a strong industrial base, without a race to the bottom and with strong unions. So it is possible :)
"Germany still has a strong industrial base, without a race to the bottom and with strong unions. So it is possible :)"
A lot, and I mean a LOT, of German industrial base is now located abroad, in Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania. These countries are rather close, but because they belonged to the Soviet Bloc, their economic development was retarded so much that local wages are 20-30 % of wages in Bavaria, but the workforce is qualified and the infrastructure adequate. This is a historic anomaly you do not have in the U.S.
Come here (I am in Czechia) and look around, the countryside around cities is absolutely dotted with German-owned factories that mostly produce parts. Those parts are then moved by trucks to Germany where the final product is assembled - and so the miracle of higher "work productivity" in BRD is created. Of course you have nominally higher productivity if you finalize products.
This is, by the way, how Viktor Orbán gets his political way. Hungary is absolutely vital part of German industrial base and German industry gets premium conditions on the ground. So for all the shouting about values and rule of law, German CDU/CSU and Orbán always find a way to coexist.
And as for race to the bottom, look to former East Germany. There, people want German wages from German bosses. They do not get them, most of the industry moved abroad where cheaper workforce is. Former GDR is an economic periphery where anti-system parties command majority of the vote.
Wages in the US are artificially high because of the dollar's position, but the US needs to either a) match the wages of the countries producing similar stuff or b) increase productivity and value to the levels of countries like Germany.
Since b) requires decades in factories, supply chains, trade agreements and most importantly training in actually producing things which means science and engineering, exactly the occupations an increasingly large portion of the US population has been taught to abhor, it is very unlikely to happen. The US has spent the last decades destroying all those things, so the only real option is to sadly let wages fall to levels markets are willing to pay for. It will bring a lot of suffering but is the consequence of decades of mismanagement and complacency, and it is unavoidable so it will either happen by will or by force. And we know it won't happen by will.
Of course there is always c) keep forcing the rest of the world to pay for the US standard of living while they themselves live beneath their means, but that is the actual problem now so how much longer can it last?
The average operating margin for the S&P 500 is 10.53% (although that may have been 2018). And economists are worried that even that is high - traditional manufacturers like Ford typically manage operating margins of ~5%. Workers are already getting 95%. And then everything after that like R&D, marketing, and capital amortization has to come out of that 5%. And then finally a bit is left over for earnings for the owners. You’re mistaking wealth for income. Surely the workers could use more wealth, but what we’re discussing is the price of goods and this is operating revenue and income. And workers already get the lions share of this.
If you’re going to make US manufactured goods cost competitive with foreign goods, much of it has to come out of that 95% operating revenue that is operating expenses, most of which will be employee wages. There’s no way around this.
workers are not getting 95%. Corporate profit and revenue is at an all time high, but wages are down since the 1980s. All that corporate growth goes into price fixing schemes and mergers to establish monopoly, and "consulting fees" to suspiciously named LLCs in the Caymans.
Read some 10-Qs for some big companies sometime. You might be surprised. Like I said - S&P 500 average operating margin was 10.53% a couple of years ago. And that’s crazy high - probably because of pharma stocks and the US’ dysfunctional generic drug regulation.
This isn't a correct way of looking at it. You're assuming that the sum total of profit generated is in that one manufacturer. It isn't the case. You have subcontractors that also make an additional ten percent, then materials coming from a supplier that takes another ten percent, which comes from raw material suppliers that make yet another 10%, and then you're going to have consultants in R&D and marketing that might make even more than 10%, and so on. So it really can end up quite a bit higher than that.
Possibly - although if your suppliers have operating margins that are as wide as yours, or wider, it might actually make sense to just buy them and take those earnings for yourself. I wonder how many of Ford's suppliers have an operating margin as wide as Ford's 5%?
I know these discussions always end up in worker vs owner debates, but what I'm talking here is about the nation.
Factories will need to adjust their prices, now you take that as you will, and if one is naive one can think it means executives will take a pay cut while workers do not, but in the end it mean less wealth for everyone, less money for taxes, less money for shareholders, less money for executives, and of course less money for workers. That is less wealth for the nation.
So yes, owners will take smaller profits, along with everyone else.
>keep forcing the rest of the world to pay for the US standard of living while they themselves live beneath their means, but that is the actual problem now so how much longer can it last
Our entire society is built on this, though. Silicon Valley wouldn't exist if electronics couldn't be produced for comparatively cheaper overseas. You bring up an interesting moral point, but if you're serious about that there's a lot of reckoning society will have to deal with. It's not just going to affect minimum wage lol. It'll affect wages across the board. You're really talking about totally reforming the economy
When someone is beating you, the least you can do is copy them. We could start by copying German worker councils (unions) - but no one in management or labour here wants that. Labour hates company unions and still dreams of building labour monopolies like they had in the 60’s and that’s exactly what worker councils were designed to prevent. And managers want to be able to bust unions which isn’t legally allowed with worker councils.
In the traditional sense, it is not the same as slavery, not by a long shot. I do agree with unions becoming prominent again. Not everything has to be a bargain basement priced items. I personally try to hit something in the middle, and often look for an American made version (or European) it can be extremely hard though, and impossible for 99% of electronics.
Do you think the 19th century is a good anecdote for what would happen nowadays? Setting minimum wage seems to create this standard that may do more harm than good. Increasing the 'standard' harms the 'middle-class' and this 'standard' may set the wages lower than entitled per job.
Which is exactly the problem: wealth inequality can't be solved by fixing wages.
Asian or "factory" countries (not necessarily from Asia but for illustration) have an "artificially" held minimum wage, which indirectly subsidizes the US minimum wage. This is happening to all wages not just minimum wages mind you, so the market needs rebalancing. Wages need rebalancing, taxes need rebalancing, but most wages, including the minimum wage need to come down (in real terms not necessarily in fiat terms).
I never said that or really proposed a solution, simply stated a problem as i saw it - Which makes sense why i got downvoted. I don't really know the answer with minimum wage but i tend to lean more 'darwinistic' in my philisophies. I wish there was more inherent economic incentive, where everyones salary was more closely tied to their contribution and efforts but I guess thats too much to ask for in this world where non performers and non-productive members of society are given this 'unalienable right' to live off the products of society just for being human.
>I wish there was more inherent economic incentive, where everyones salary was more closely tied to their contribution and efforts but I guess thats too much to ask for in this world where non performers and non-productive members of society are given this 'unalienable right' to live off the products of society just for being human.
It's hard to parse what you are asking for - what more economic incentive would you imagine there to be; I think the problem with this line of thinking is that you are taking a far too simplistic model of the world where our problems are caused by people being "lazy". I think the world you are wishing for existed - it's probably the hunter/gatherer model; any more sophisticated organization of civilization requires some level of socialization. I think your "darwinistic" approach is a flawed philosophy upon which it build a nation or a global superpower.
It's interesting because the article posits, and makes a very good case for, systemic issues that has caused the erosion of manufacturing base - however politically we are unable to move beyond simply understood talking points such as "minimum wage".
As a general rule, yes, i think all things being equal, history tends to repeat itself.
Of course, all things aren't always equal, but if you're going to argue its going to be different this time around, i think there is some onus to argue why the present would be different from the past.
It's because they build the machines to build the product the Chinese manufacture. The Germans have forced themselves to be at the top of the Manufacturing Food Chain (engineering, etc) while letting the Chinese/Rest of the world build the crap we buy.
I don't think we could get there manufacturing the "Trinkets" the Chinese mostly manufacture, that is a a race to the bottom where either automation or cheap labor win.
Your impression of China manufacturing "mostly Trinkets" is decades out of date.
Chinese manufacturing is now at a very high level, to the point where many western brands have effectively become "fabless", leveraging the fact that Chinese brands still struggle with poor reputation even domestically. In this symbiotic relationship, the fact that Germany is literally "the land of virtue" in Chinese might play a role.
Chinese labor has now too become relatively expensive, its economy is moving to become a service economy, and manufacturing gets outsourced from China to even cheaper countries.
What I always wondered: are German products that much better, or is it a meme?
The thought that comes to mind is when American railways tried to import German locomotives in the 1960s. They were appealing because they offered higher horsepower ratings than anything domestic, but they required too much babying and maintenance to keep healthy and were quickly scrapped. I hear strikingly similar things from people buying German cars today-- everything tends to be expensive to keep running after the warranty expires.
I wonder if American manufacturing needs to develop its own meme. I'd suggest the old line about GM products-- they'll run poorly for a lot longer competing products run at all. That could be a compelling argument when you're selling to a manufacturing sector that's rolling out in low-development countries with unstable infrastructure, poor environmental conditions, and low-training staff.
That gives us a niche we can target and use as a base to re-bootstrap ourselves into competitiveness. We need to be decidedly better than bottom-bit Chinese (etc.) tooling, which is probably still within our abilities, and if we overdeliver there, we can begin to position American-made as a premium choice.
A large part of the expense on the cars is import tariffs and shipping/freight expense. Upkeep on a German car in Germany is substantially less expensive.
All I know is I've been in an Audi and the center console had so much unnecessary stuff going on. It's a stereotype for a reason German stuff is performant and precise but over engineered
Tesla is trying to do exactly what you describe. Build "the machine that builds the machine", as Elon Musk would say.
I agree with you that trying to compete on low-cost, low-margin is a race to the bottom. We could conceivably bring manufacturing of iPhones back to America. I would also imagine that manufacturing of silicon is largely automated, so the US could try to build the best fabs.
Tesla has done some reverse Chinese equity investment swap thing and is now at least somewhat a Chinese company building manufacturing capacity and innovation in EVs. Musk is a lot of things, and one thing is clear: he’s an opportunist more than a US economic nationalist. He will not be the saviour of American industry.
The number of powerful economic nationalists in US history can be counted - if the US is lucky - on one hand.
Assuming that the goal is saving the American industry (whatever that means) - if the plan is 'good people will save it' then failure is already baked in. That plan never works. The plan should be 'whoever saves it will become fabulously and disgustingly wealthy' - then greedy opportunists will save it for you and people can go protest about how greedy they are.
Relying on good people to act is dicey. Relying on greedy people to act is a safe path.
I've got to add my two cents to this discussion...
You discuss tool and die makers, a very highly skilled profession; one that I would argue takes many years of training and labor to master. I would further argue that in the manufacturing world, when it comes to hands on work, tool and die guys are near the very top.
Yet at the same time, you talk about cutting the minimum wage. Tool and die makers (of any sort) aren't going to be working for minimum wage.
While I don't disagree with the importance of American manufacturing, I think your prescription is wrong. We don't need lower wages, we need better education, more apprenticeships, more buy in from industry to spend money on training their employees. Because sooner than people think, China will have labor cost parity with the US, and we'll find that labor cost isn't solely the reason they are a manufacturing power house.
Competing in a race to the bottom ought to beg the question about what alternatives and options are. Focusing on efficiency and quality are two examples that would probably be a better long-term bet, with fewer negative secondary effects.
I don't know why more people aren't saying this. Is it really a majority opinion on this site that a race to the bottom is a good, or even tenable idea?
They aren’t slaves, they’re just people extremely happy to get a wage of $10k per year, which would be unobtainable for most of them any other way. The fact that this means they under cut US manufacturing wages by more than half isn’t really their fault.
As for bringing back manufacturing home, you need to find two things to make that work. First massive subsidies and tariffs to drive up the cost of foreign imports, imposing huge costs on tax payers and consumers; and tens of millions of people willing to work in factories. The US long term unemployment rate in 2019 was about a third of a percent. Where are you going to find the money, and where are you going to find the people?
I say taxes aren't necessary. Just hold companies accountable for every step in their manufacturing chain. They need to audit and ensure factories address meeting or standards for the workers.
I don't mean wages, I mean safety, overtime, etc. Labor needs to be valued at home and abroad.
I'm all for holding companies accountable for their supply chain management, but within reason. I can't see the US government accepting EU employment contract, health, safety and business practices imposed on the US arbitrarily. There has to be some flexibility. Let's be clear, the west has reaped _staggering_ economic benefits from opening up China. Of course there have been costs too, some of them painful, but that's always the way with economic change.
It's not the other country accepting, it's ensuring the company adheres to certain standards in it's supply chain. Any penalties would be assessed against the US based company.
He's not referring to all Chinese laborers, but Uyghurs who were first sent to re-edcation camps and then sent off to factories all against their will.
A reprehensible and horrific crime for sure, which I don’t want to trivialise, but not an economically consequential one in the grand scheme of things.
> To compete, you really do have to cut minimum wage
The article points out other ways to reduce the cost of domestic labor: namely, shifting away from high payroll taxes and severing the link between health insurance and employment.
>> To compete, you really do have to cut minimum wage. You have to loosen regulations
That’s not what Germany has done but there’s little doubt that Germany’s manufacturing ability is held in a higher regard globally.
So i challenge the “have to”. It’s the unproven talk of a particular tribe but i stress unproven since economics is a social science. That means there’s lots of science but is fundamentally stories we tell each other and not akin to, for example, the unassailable truth of gravitational pull.
How will cutting the minimum wage help in the long run? People earning the current minimum wage already struggle to afford rent and food. Can you really expect to get quality work from someone who has to work 4 jobs to be able to pay rent and is sleeping 4 hours a night?
You're not going to defeat China by cutting wages unless you address the societal issues that cause US wages to be high. We already haven't raised the federal minimum wage in decades.
> "You either let free people work for what ever wage they can achieve or we risk becoming slaves ourselves."
We should work for slave-like wages voluntarily or have it forced upon us?
This is a poorly thought out argument. Cost of living, housing, etc. is obviously different in US, you might end up with less income than is necessary for survival. What makes you think you will be able to find any workers at all, let alone those trained to the necessary standard and skill?
It should be obvious that appropriate responce to a crime (slave labour) being committed is not to commit the same crime yourself.
Any products with stolen materials, stolen labour, or stolen taxes should not be allowed on the market at all.
In all fairness, the same is happening to China as well. Manufacturing as a percentage of GDP has been declining every year since 2010, and iirc manufacturing in total value has stagnated entirely in many provinces over the last couple of years.
Manufacturing is still moving to SE Asian countries (Viet Nam in particular), but even there producers are increasingly moving production in India and East Africa because of rising costs (e.g., wages).
I am not so sure about the loosen regulations thing. The US had periods of time with virtually no regulations. Rivers caught on fire, people were maimed and died of industrial accidents at much higher rates, water was unsafe to drink, ect. The countries now without much regulation are usually poor, dirty and dangerous. I want to live in a safe, clean, healthy environment.
I agree with you on the tariffs. China should not be able to outcompete us because they pollute and use slave labor. Force them to compete on fair terms.
This is missing the point of the article. The main reason for the current state of affairs is the petro-dollar system and the need for US to run deficits. Changing regulations for domestic manufacturing has very little to do with it.
There are quite a few European countries with very robust manufacturing bases who are far more regulated (both from a labor and capital perspective). So, minimum wages, labor unions etc have little to do with the US' manufacturing base. In fact, one could argue that weaker unions, if anything, have contributed to the decimation of the manufacturing base.
>To compete, you really do have to cut minimum wage. You have to loosen regulations, and importantly, you have to do massive tariffs / sanctions on China for the next decade.
Not so, import taxes and one avenue that should be explored is true carbon costs/impact factored in. Why should something made locally be more expensive than something made the other side of the World and shipped all that distance. Clearly some impact costs not being factored and the whole carbon aspect should be utilised for many benefits - balancing out imports for one.
Banning or taxing out of existence foreign investment on real estate and pegging the fed rate to zero will accomplish the same thing without needing to care about minimum wage. Shenzhen minimum wage currently provides workers in China with a higher standard of living than US minimum wage does in the US.
Only difference is that the wealthy in the US will carry more of the burden instead of the working class.
And that’s why we don’t have many advocates for it even though it will solve the manufacturing problem almost overnight
The reason foreign real estate investment is so high is because the dollar is the reserve currency of the world, and since those countries produce so much they have a huge excess of dollars but the US produces so little they have nothing to buy with those dollars. The only thing the US can realistically offer is land, if you ban it it will only accelerate the collapse.
Banning foreign investment in real estate forces foreign investors into more productive investments while simultaneously lowering the cost of living for workers and cost of business for companies.
Moving inflation to 6% will create millions of working class jobs in the US due to both a weaker dollar and cheaper money supply for value creation.
The losers in all of this are wealthy Americans. They will see their assets depreciate and buying power diminish. And that’s why we don’t do it.
Banning foreign investment will force them to dump dollars and treasury bonds and will accelerate the development of an alternative to it for international trade.
But I guess since what you want is inflation that is one way to get it, tho it will not be 6% but closer to 30%.
Yield curve control has not worked for anyone, it is a death spiral that results in zombie economies, at best.
> Banning foreign investment will force them to dump dollars and treasury bonds and will accelerate the development of an alternative to it for international trade.
How does this harm a working class American that derives all of their income from working wages as opposed to assets?
> it will not be 6% but closer to 30
Cite and example where a country did not default/print money for their debt payments and inflation went to 30%
> Yield curve control has not worked for anyone, it is a death spiral that results in zombie economies, at best.
How does this harm a working class American that derives all of their income from working wages as opposed to assets?
Lastly, address how any of the above prevents an increase in manufacturing jobs, which was the intent of the measures originally listed.
> How does this harm a working class American that derives all of their income from working wages as opposed to assets?
Their wage-dollars will now buy less stuff.
> Cite and example where a country did not default/print money for their debt payments and inflation went to 30%
The US has the world reserve fiat currency, so there are no examples because a fiat reserve currency has never existed before, but we know hyperinflation is a likely outcome. Now, from the experience we do have, ~30% inflation like in the 70s is the best we can hope for. A zombie economy like japan's would frankly be fantastic given the conditions.
>How does this harm a working class American that derives all of their income from working wages as opposed to assets?
Their wage-dollars will now buy less stuff.
> Lastly, address how any of the above prevents an increase in manufacturing jobs, which was the intent of the measures originally listed.
Don't worry, americans will have plenty of $1/hour manufacturing jobs like asians do now (or the nominal equivalente to $1 in a hyper-inflationary world). The US doesn't have the technical capacity or workforce to compete in high paying manufacturing any more and will take decades of pain to build.
Well, you don't seem to understand the fundamental problem. Whatever labor force exists in America should see rapidly growing wages because the unemployment rate is relatively low. The reality is that not only do we not see inflation the fed has set the interest rates to almost zero and injected an insane amount of money into the stock market with no change in sight. There is slack in the system, a lot of slack. This causes wage growth to stagnate while rich people in the USA still make loads money off Chinese labor. They don't have to care about Americans because there are work forces abroad waiting for them.
>The US has the world reserve fiat currency, so there are no examples because a fiat reserve currency has never existed before, but we know
This is completely irrelevant. The primary benefit of a world reserve fiat currency is running a trade surplus without financing but if you don't produce anything, not even housing that advantage is meaningless.
>hyperinflation is a likely outcome.
Banning investments into real estate might not be optimal but hyperinflation is not going to happen because the economy isn't even close to it's production capacity.
>Now, from the experience we do have, ~30% inflation like in the 70s is the best we can hope for.
There is a response to your commend that disputes that we even had this "experience".
>A zombie economy like japan's would frankly be fantastic given the conditions.
The USA is already partially a zombie. You have public companies with record stock growth despite no changes in fundamentals. It's easier to make money off the stock market because that's where the rich are using the watering can of the fed even though there are lots of withering plants surrounding the almond farm. The stock market looks significantly brighter than it should.
>Banning foreign investment will force them to dump dollars and treasury bonds and will accelerate the development of an alternative to it for international trade.
Only if they don't find a better alternative than real estate.
Moving inflation to 6% will almost certainly not impact any wealthy American with most of their net worth in equity. It will impact working class Americans who have their savings, however little, in bank accounts.
It would be more sensible to just build more housing. That way Chinese dollars will end up employing Americans instead of just changing the title on a home. It's quite funny how backwards America is in this regard. They are unwilling to produce more of their primary "export" even though there is no way for production of it to be moved to any other country. Instead every property owner wants a larger slice at the expense of everyone else.
I am surprised that no one has mentioned punitive taxation of companies that engage in offshoring/higher taxes on foreign direct investment as an alternative to tariffs.
>You either let free people work for what ever wage they can achieve or we risk becoming slaves ourselves.
Minimum wage already isn't really a living wage in much of the country. Rolling back regulations is jumping headfirst into slavery, whereas.. I'm very critical of China but don't see the connection between their expanding industry and slavery. Businesses are diversifying their supply chain in the face of this pandemic.
I'm not disagreeing on the spirit of your statement but I wonder if labour costs are really the prime driver of profitability with high tech manufacturing. It may be, but I'd love to see some of the figures, there could be other factors at play such as environment protection for example.
This happened in part thanks to bain capital, those following the same business model of theivery, and the deregulation in the 80's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_Capital Republican lawmakers and party members have been destroying America for generations. Goes back even further to 1971 when Nixon opened talks with the CCCP and then went there in 1972 cutting the ground out from beneath American workers. And now if we even wanted to rebuild our manufacturing base, we have to deal with the same problems the few remaining factories do, finding people not on some kind of illegal substance that can work. The bodies are there, but they aren't in any shape to bring back what we had.
Trump was the first president in my lifetime to even admit gutting our manufacturing base is a problem. Neither Democrats nor establishment Republicans did anything but line up for their shockingly paltry share of the loot while mouthing platitudes about efficiency.
The argument against his covid response was in not using more aggressive lockdowns. Which is the thing that increases unemployment. You seem to be arguing that more lockdowns, which increase unemployment in the short term, would have reduced unemployment in the short term (i.e. the period measured in that data).
More aggressive lockdowns initially could have limited the initial spread, and from there reasonable precautions could have been effective. Disparaging mask use is also generally considered to be harmful.
Cutting funding to certain CDC programs may also have been detrimental.
His followers hang on his every word. If he had simply said "yes masks are a good thing" 90% of his followers would have preached it from the mountaintops and things could have been much better. Instead we have almost 300K people dead and a lot of those are deceased as a result of his policies.
> If he had simply said "yes masks are a good thing" 90% of his followers would have preached it from the mountaintops and things could have been much better.
> More aggressive lockdowns initially could have limited the initial spread, and from there reasonable precautions could have been effective.
This is what Australia did. Except that some of the measures they used may have been unconstitutional in the US, and Australia is an island. The US has 4500 miles of porous borders with other countries.
And covid spreads asymptomatically, so the only way to get to where Australia is now is to get the number of cases down to basically zero. Which you can't do if you get 40 more from Mexico every week.
Notice that Australia is basically the only country that has managed to succeed with this; western Europe is doing little better than the US.
> Cutting funding to certain CDC programs may also have been detrimental.
This is fake news. The budget cuts were proposed (as a starting point for budget negotiations with Congress) but never actually enacted:
> Disparaging mask use is also generally considered to be harmful.
For that you can thank CNN. They were writing a national story every time Trump would appear on camera without a mask, even if he was giving a speech to a camera with no audience or was in a room with entirely people being covid tested every day. This predictably led to Trump supporters defending him and it becoming a partisan issue.
It also didn't help that the CDC was disparaging mask use early on, ostensibly in order to preserve PPE for medical professionals, which gave everybody plenty of ammunition to fight about it once CNN had made it partisan for no good reason.
Australia being an island has little bearing on this. It's not like the Covid situation in the USA is because of infected people crossing the border illegally: it happened because of legal travel.
Trump's so-called China ban was a farce. It didn't stop USA residents from flying into the USA, it didn't even stop the immediate family of residents from flying to the USA.
Australia closed all travel from China initially and later from everywhere else in the world. There's plenty of room for criticism as they also stopped Australians from returning home, but the results are tough to argue with.
I keep saying this about the silly island argument. It's not like the virus is coming into the US via Mexico and Canada. And domestic travel was halted with state border closures. The key is slowing movement. It's been perplexing watching Americans proudly travel and holiday, even internationally, during all this.
40 people coming from Mexico is highly unlikely to lead to 230,000 US cases/day.
It may be inaccurate news, but calling it fake is needlessly hyperbolic. The contention isn't that overall funding was cut, it's that certain groups within the CDC saw significant cuts, and those cuts reduced readiness.
Regardless of whether Trump's missteps were politicized, they were still missteps. Doubling down on something after someone calls you out doesn't make them responsible for your actions.
> 40 people coming from Mexico is highly unlikely to lead to 230,000 US cases/day.
Contagions have exponential growth. 40 people coming from Mexico after you've lifted the lockdowns means you need to continue them to keep the 40 from turning into a thousand and then hundreds of thousands. Which means lockdowns of the severity Australia used are useless here because you can never get below the floor necessary to lift them again.
> The contention isn't that overall funding was cut, it's that certain groups within the CDC saw significant cuts, and those cuts reduced readiness.
The problem with this kind of claim is that it's always the case. Priorities shift, staff gets reassigned etc. Which means that of the 1000 different units, 700 of which grew and 300 of which shrank, you'll be able to find in the list that shrank something that sounds like it might have helped against a given problem. It's just cherry picking.
> Regardless of whether Trump's missteps were politicized, they were still missteps. Doubling down on something after someone calls you out doesn't make them responsible for your actions.
The point is that they weren't missteps. Calling out someone for not actually doing something wrong in order to stir up controversy and ratings and politicize a public health issue is contemptible. Defending yourself against a baseless personal attack is not.
The problem, which CNN should have been able to predict, is that if you politicize an issue, people take sides, even if there was never any reasoned disagreement to be had. But maybe they did predict it and did it anyway, so that when less savvy political opponents predictably started making less supportable claims, it would give the instigators something to shoot down and mount on their wall. Even if people died.
> The point is that they weren't missteps. Calling out someone for not actually doing something wrong in order to stir up controversy and ratings and politicize a public health issue is contemptible. Defending yourself against a baseless personal attack is not.
What a straw man. You realize there were photos of daily meetings with large groups, bill signings, news reports on how masks were barely worn in the white house. Yes he didn't wear masks as press conferences because they entire administration was lax about mask usage. And then for you to argue and only mention the press conferences is extremely disingenuous.
And that's separate from the Mexico argument. To me, it's incredible how little responsibility certain groups of people take for their own actions. A political party that has continuously downplayed the cheapest, low effort, low cost method of stopping the virus, instead again tries to blame Mexico instead of taking responsibility for their own actions.
> Yes he didn't wear masks as press conferences because they entire administration was lax about mask usage. And then for you to argue and only mention the press conferences is extremely disingenuous.
You're missing my point. They would follow him around with a camera and any time they could show him without a mask there would be another story, regardless of the facts or the context. They would write the same story whether or not he was doing anything wrong in that instance.
That's a recipe for creating partisan conflict. They write the story when he's not doing anything wrong and then people correctly defend him. The existence of true instances are not a defense to reporting false ones. Because this is basic psychology; once people start defending something they keep doing it. So they created a large population of people willing to defend not wearing a mask. It was totally irresponsible.
It's the old saw about how the best way to discredit an idea is to defend it loudly with transparently erroneous arguments. That's what CNN were doing throughout.
> And that's separate from the Mexico argument. To me, it's incredible how little responsibility certain groups of people take for their own actions.
Please pay attention to context.
The argument I'm making is that the severe lockdowns as used in Australia could not have been as effective here because they only work if you can close your borders in practice, which Australia can do and the US can't. We're not even talking about "low effort, low cost" methods -- the argument is that higher cost efforts, of the sort that could actually get the number of cases to zero, couldn't have worked here. Even if the US put everyone in solitary confinement for a month, attempting to reopen the day after that would have still seen dozens of new cases.
That is a different argument to the one that more severe extended lockdowns would have saved lives. Which might very well be true (though against some grisly trade offs), but it's no support for claiming that it would have been better for US manufacturing in 2020, which is ridiculous.
uniform lockdowns that were widely enforced for 2 weeks and then followed by masks, social distancing, and hand washing would have been more effective, and harmed the economy less.
If you have a more aggressive lockdown, you can control the disease instead of letting it rage unabated for months. Trump’s covid response has been an unmitigated disaster for businesses.
> He didn’t do anything that actually slowed the loss of our manufacturing base while president.
Come on now. Say what you will about the effect of the tax changes on inequality, they're clearly designed to make it more attractive to do business in the US, e.g. lower corporate rates and allowing capital expenditures to be deducted immediately rather than amortized over a period of years. It's hard to argue that tariffs on goods from China don't make it less attractive to buy goods from China.
> It's hard to argue that tariffs on goods from China don't make it less attractive to buy goods from China.
It's true that tariffs will make buying goods from China less appealing, but if you look at the outcome, it's not really a win. Consumers are paying more for the same goods, companies are scrambling to move their production to India and Malaysia, and there's not a significant increase in US manufacturing.
A properly executed initiative to increase US-based manufacturing would address all of the factors necessary to restart manufacturing:
- Not only tax cuts, but subsidies and investment aimed at increasing manufacturing in specific industries
- A concerted program to identify labor and skills shortages, and address them
- A program to identify the missing parts of manufacturing ecosystems and address them. One reason why electronics are made in China is not only cheap labor, but access to a whole ecosystem of suppliers and other manufacturers. Need one million PCBs assembled, plastic casings made, half a million cardboard boxes printed, instruction manuals printed and bound, well, there's a whole ecosystem of partners ready to get all of these things done with the capacity to have a relatively short turnaround time.
- A clear bipartisan commitment that this is something that won't get deprioritized or axed one or two administrations later, but something that is of national interest and that both parties agree to push forward
- A national focus on a key differentiator from other countries' manufacturing. China has cheap, Japan, Switzerland, and Germany have good, the US has big and sturdy maybe?
- Tariffs to protect newly formed manufacturing businesses, but only in conjunction with all of the above
This is what a solid plan for restarting US manufacturing would look like.
> It's true that tariffs will make buying goods from China less appealing, but if you look at the outcome, it's not really a win. Consumers are paying more for the same goods, companies are scrambling to move their production to India and Malaysia, and there's not a significant increase in US manufacturing.
If you look at the actual outcome, it was that China devalued their currency or otherwise lowered prices to eat the tariffs, because their nightmare is manufacturing getting a foothold anywhere else, whether it's India or the US. Which is a win for the US because we have China paying us billions of dollars in tariffs without paying significantly higher prices for goods.
That doesn't help US manufacturing directly, but it gives the US a lot of leverage in trade negotiations because now China wants that situation to stop happening. And in the meantime the money can be used for tax cuts or subsidies to US businesses.
We could also just raise the tariffs more, for as long as China decides they want to keep paying them instead of letting them push manufacturing out of China.
> Not only tax cuts, but subsidies and investment aimed at increasing manufacturing in specific industries
Tax cuts and subsidies are equivalent. And it's not clear why targeting specific industries is useful rather than giving the same incentives across all industries.
> A concerted program to identify labor and skills shortages, and address them
Address them how? With more subsidies, which is really just equivalent to tax cuts again? This is the sort of thing markets are better at than governments.
> A program to identify the missing parts of manufacturing ecosystems and address them. One reason why electronics are made in China is not only cheap labor, but access to a whole ecosystem of suppliers and other manufacturers. Need one million PCBs assembled, plastic casings made, half a million cardboard boxes printed, instruction manuals printed and bound, well, there's a whole ecosystem of partners ready to get all of these things done with the capacity to have a relatively short turnaround time.
This is certainly a problem, but it seems to imply the opposite of your other proposed solutions. You would then not want to target specific segments but rather have broad incentives to engage in all different kinds of business activity, i.e. general tax cuts.
> A clear bipartisan commitment that this is something that won't get deprioritized or axed one or two administrations later, but something that is of national interest and that both parties agree to push forward
This seems like something you need Democrats to do rather than something you need Trump to do.
> A national focus on a key differentiator from other countries' manufacturing. China has cheap, Japan, Switzerland, and Germany have good, the US has big and sturdy maybe?
What does this even mean? Countries don't need to differentiate like this. How is it even differentiation when three of the four countries you listed are using the same one?
> If you look at the actual outcome, it was that China devalued their currency or otherwise lowered prices to eat the tariffs, because their nightmare is manufacturing getting a foothold anywhere else, whether it's India or the US. Which is a win for the US because we have China paying us billions of dollars in tariffs without paying significantly higher prices for goods.
Can you tell my suppliers this so they stop passing on 50% of the cost of the tariffs onto me please? They don’t seem to have gotten your memo that the Chinese are paying the tariffs instead of the consumers.
I literally have “import tariffs” as a line item on all my invoices that relate to goods manufactured in China. Every single supplier appears to be colluding to increase their profits, if what you’re saying is true.
The alternative is that tariffs are actually driving up costs unnecessarily.
The environment/macro has already changed, and the tariffs are here to stay, even Biden and post-Biden. If you haven't yet adjusted to this, your business is in big trouble as your competitors already have moved from China to other SE countries, and you will most likely fail soon.
As an aside. Most US based businesses have already moved on. It seems that alot of European-run businesses are laggards
Tariffs don’t really seem to help anyone. Appliances are much more expensive than the last time I bought them in 2015. If we continue to raise tariffs, China will just stop buying corn, soybeans, and pork, and suddenly all of the revenue raised from tariffs are going to bail out farmers in Iowa.
They're not. One can't cut taxes below zero, for starters. Some industries need more than just having negligible taxes to get started, especially in capital intensive businesses.
Furthermore, the idea that the only lever that the government has to induce people to do things is lowering taxes is completely absurd. Tax cuts didn't build the Hoover dam, the interstate highway system, nor send a man to the Moon.
The government can use targeted investments, messaging, procurement, tax cuts, and so on in order to move people towards certain outcomes.
The day that the US government announces that they'll buy 100 million masks a month for a strategic reserve or replace all of the mobile devices for all federal employees, as long as they're at at most a 50% premium over the cheapest option and are fully traceable from raw materials to finished product as being fully built in the US and allied countries, is the day that people will start investigating if it's possible to do so, and start trying to do so if it's possible.
> This seems like something you need Democrats to do rather than something you need Trump to do.
It takes two to tango. Many other countries are able to pass laws and make progress, even in complex multiparty negotiations during minority governments.
> They're not. One can't cut taxes below zero, for starters.
You might want to check with the IRS, since that's exactly what the EITC does. It's also the de facto result when a company takes a tax loss (e.g. from deducting more expenses than it had in revenue, common for startups) and can then sell the tax loss to another company to offset its tax burden.
> Tax cuts didn't build the Hoover dam, the interstate highway system, nor send a man to the Moon.
As opposed to Tesla's plant at Niagara Falls, or the various privately-owned rail networks in the world, or SpaceX?
> The day that the US government announces that they'll buy 100 million masks a month for a strategic reserve or replace all of the mobile devices for all federal employees, as long as they're at at most a 50% premium over the cheapest option and are fully traceable from raw materials to finished product as being fully built in the US and allied countries, is the day that people will start investigating if it's possible to do so, and start trying to do so if it's possible.
But that's actually more expensive, and less productive, than just making it more cost effective to manufacture things domestically than somewhere else, because domestic production has low taxes and efficient regulations and production in countries that engage in currency manipulation or have inadequate environmental protections are subject to tariffs.
> It takes two to tango.
That's the problem. It doesn't matter how willing one side is to negotiate if Democrats are too busy fabricating lies about Russia collusion to come to the table. Compromise requires both sides to be reasonable.
The EITC is for individuals that have low incomes, AFAIK. Can you elaborate on how the EITC would increase the amount of US manufacturing?
> It's also the de facto result when a company takes a tax loss (e.g. from deducting more expenses than it had in revenue, common for startups) and can then sell the tax loss to another company to offset its tax burden.
Can the tax loss be sold separate from the legal entity itself?
> As opposed to Tesla's plant at Niagara Falls, or the various privately-owned rail networks in the world, or SpaceX?
Are you saying that without the TCJA, none of these would have been built?
> But that's actually more expensive, and less productive, than just making it more cost effective to manufacture things domestically than somewhere else
Making it "more cost effective" through tax cuts helps existing businesses, not starting new ones.
If a business needs $10 million in capital to buy the machinery necessary to make widget X, and has to compete with an existing factory that produces equivalent widgets and has paid off their existing machinery, how can they compete? The existing business already has relationships with suppliers, customers, and distributors, and if the new entrant looks like it will be trouble, they can just cut their profit margin such that the new entrant will be struggling to cover the extra expenses associated with building all of those relationships while paying off the loans to acquire the machinery.
Heck, both of those businesses could reduce their profit margins to zero, with both having an effective tax rate of zero, and only the established one would be able to effectively compete due to lower costs.
> That's the problem. It doesn't matter how willing one side is to negotiate if Democrats are too busy fabricating lies about Russia collusion to come to the table.
Or one could say that the Republicans are unwilling to play ball as well (eg. over COVID-19 related stimulus). The fact is, whether one party is at fault over the other, Americans and US businesses are paying the cost of the lack of bipartisan initiatives to improve the state of US manufacturing.
> The EITC is for individuals that have low incomes, AFAIK. Can you elaborate on how the EITC would increase the amount of US manufacturing?
The EITC is an example of a "tax cut" that allows for negative tax rates.
> Can the tax loss be sold separate from the legal entity itself?
Actually selling the tax loss is generally only done for defunct companies, since a company expecting a future profit would just keep it in their pocket to use themselves later. Although you could probably still do it if you wanted to by splitting the company in two and then selling the one that "owns" the tax loss or something similar.
> Are you saying that without the TCJA, none of these would have been built?
I'm saying that private entities can build things like that.
> If a business needs $10 million in capital to buy the machinery necessary to make widget X, and has to compete with an existing factory that produces equivalent widgets and has paid off their existing machinery, how can they compete?
The real issue is that if you add a factory, you could be in a situation of overcapacity, and then you're locked in price competition and selling at thin margins, which nobody likes.
The secret is this. Factories have a finite lifetime, e.g. 30 years. So you have an incumbent that has paid off their factory. It's 28 years old. You pay $10M to build a new factory, today. They're going to drive prices below your cost for two years, but then they're going to have to build a new factory themselves... and bow out, because the alternative would mean being locked in unprofitable price competition with you for another 28 years. So you win the market and can go back to charging profitable margins. You just have to time your entry right, i.e. finish your construction just before they start on theirs.
Assuming you're even two different companies. Otherwise you just build your company's new factory in the new place whenever the old one in the old place is ready to be mothballed.
> The existing business already has relationships with suppliers, customers, and distributors, and if the new entrant looks like it will be trouble, they can just cut their profit margin such that the new entrant will be struggling to cover the extra expenses associated with building all of those relationships while paying off the loans to acquire the machinery.
To some extent this is also just a war of attrition. If a new entrant causes oversupply for any reason then it persists until somebody goes out of business. This has more to do with who has more money they're willing to set fire to in order to capture a given amount of market share than who was in the market first.
One way to help your people win is to ensure cheap access to capital (i.e. low interest rates), but that's already there in the US.
> Or one could say that the Republicans are unwilling to play ball as well (eg. over COVID-19 related stimulus).
It was your impression that the Republicans were the ones holding this up? They had every political incentive to accept any reasonable bill before the election, and even now to do it before the inauguration in order to take credit for it.
> The fact is, whether one party is at fault over the other, Americans and US businesses are paying the cost of the lack of bipartisan initiatives to improve the state of US manufacturing.
> It's hard to argue that tariffs on goods from China don't make it less attractive to buy goods from China.
Disagree. I think this is small minded. So you add a tariff on chinese goods. If they are not the cheapest, then you buy from elsewhere... which still isn't the USA.
And then China does the same thing: retaliating with tariffs, and then buying goods from elsewhere, which isn't the USA either.
So in this game, tariffs probably hurt businesses in both countries.
And, anecdotally: I still buy products from china. More today than 4 years ago. The products for sale on Amazon are often just chinese imports that have been marked up or re-branded. I think it's the exception, rather than the rule, that tariffs did anything positive for someone.
> So you add a tariff on chinese goods. If they are not the cheapest, then you buy from elsewhere... which still isn't the USA.
But that's still good. It provides for supply chain diversity even if it isn't in the US. Now you can buy from China and Mexico instead of only China.
Then you get a functional supply chain operating in Mexico, which has geographical proximity to the US and has greater overlap in language and culture, and you're one step closer to manufacturing in Arizona and Texas.
> And then China does the same thing: retaliating with tariffs, and then buying goods from elsewhere, which isn't the USA either.
But the US has a 3:1 trade imbalance with China, so we can use a third of the money to cancel out their tariffs on our stuff. Or threaten to raise ours 33% if they don't stop.
The US has leverage here, but only if they use it.
> And, anecdotally: I still buy products from china.
Manufacturing left the US over the course of 50 years. It isn't going to all come back in less than 5 years. We're talking about long-term here.
> True, but he said he said that simply because Bernie did, and it played well against Hillary in the primaries.
To be fair, Trump has been saying that since the 80s... Of course that didn't stop him from manufacturing in china himself. The guy talks the talk but rarely walks the walk.
> He didn’t do anything that actually slowed the loss of our manufacturing base while president.
And that's why he lost. But boy did he make israel safe. How many arab states did he force into recognizing israel? 4 or 5?
Trump's achievements were making israel great again and forcing mexico to extend intellectual property rights by a few years so that he can selling his "Trump" name in mexico for a few more years? Not that things are going to get any better with biden.
But then again, it's naive to think the president hold any true power. The power are held by those behind the scenes. Politicians nowadays are entertainers to keep the populace distracted. Presidents come and go, but the powerful remain.
Oh really? I'm sure it's just a coincidence that after getting repeatedly browbeat Apple dramatically ramped up iPhone production in India and Brazil? That's just one example.
I guess we will know for sure - if they slow or reverse (especially in India) under Beijing Biden that will be confirmation Trump was successful at least at moving manufacturing away from China. It was a start. I don't expect it to continue with the establishment Democrats and Republicans back in charge. Yippie.
I agree and that was one of the few things I liked about him, but you know it's all BS when he doesn't support unions. Plus everything else about him is just heinous and basically a ruse to just get people to like him and stroke his ego.
There was a recent youtube of a Chinese professor discussing how china has gotten along so well with the US while the great migration of manufacturing occurred. It boiled down to wall street being fine with moving manufacturing abroad, as they don't identify with, and in fact despise, the American working class.
"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain." - Napolean Bonaparte
"I sincerely believe with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; & that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale" - Thomas Jefferson
"I have two great enemies, the southern army in front of me and the financial institutions in the rear. Of the two, the one in the rear is the greatest enemy" - Abraham Lincoln
If they despised the working class they would've pushed for removal of the useless rules the West has - health and safety, generous pensions for hard jobs(like miners), minimum wage, etc.
Basically amounted to corporate handouts, with the way the money was mispent. I don't think the issue is that the labor class is getting too big a share, cases like this should make it clear that inequality that's at the root of these problems
It’s fair to eye roll at ineffective agreements that don’t pan out. Racing to the bottom with tax incentives is not the only way to bring back manufacturing and hasn’t seemed to work when it’s tried.
I don’t mind eye rolling at corporate handouts and deals that are mirages. But the parent comment only seems to be mocking the idea of bringing manufacturing back and saying how dumb Republicans are for wanting to do it.
> mocking the idea of bringing manufacturing back and saying how dumb Republicans are for wanting to do it.
At what point did I ever say Republicans were dumb for wanting it? I'm mocking the idea that Republicans actively denounced corporate welfare (saying it's a Democratic thing), yet just do it themselves (and then fail at actually make the change for that matter).
The parent comment mentioned he is a registered republican, so its relevant. I was merely making a joke about that since they referenced that in their comment. They also mentioned:
> the last LCD panel manufacturer in the US closed around then and we could no longer manufacture LCD for our military vehicles
Where did they say it was a good idea or a bad idea? Where did I say it was a bad idea? My reply was commenting specifically on the fact that the party he supports literally tried to manufacture the one item he was referring to and failed at it.
Maybe YOU'RE the one with little value added to this discussion other than getting triggered.
EDIT: Just to clarify - you seem to be only focusing on one part of my comment an interpreting exactly what you want to hear. Maybe take a step back and realize what's important to you.
> Where did they say it was a good idea or a bad idea?
The entire comment made the case. But if you want specifics, how about the sentences immediately prior to the one you pulled out of context: “I argued vociferously to a Dem friend in 2000 that our inability to manufacture critical components was going to kill us. Kind of literally:”
But yeah, I’m sure the problem here is that I’m “triggered.”
There's a difference between saying corporate welfare is a bad idea and saying manufacturing in the US is a bad idea. I said the former and you inferred the latter. I criticized the implementation of an idea and you focused on the idea. It's amazing how predictable you lot are.
For the record - manufacturing output in the US is trending upward[0] (sans recession). Manufacturing employment is down, not because it's outsourced to China, but because its being automated.
It's not about slave labor, it's about manufacturing equipment. I suspect it was turned down, because helping the northeast survive a pandemic was not perceived as worth any political risk/capital.
Wait. According to that article, the last major mask manufacturer in US offered to increase production and was turned down by government.
> "In the end, the government did not take Bowen up on his offer. Even today[May 9, 2020], production lines that could be making more than 7 million masks a month sit dormant."
That article was published in May 9. Even on May 9, the production lines were dormant. How could this happen? It is unfathomable. The country probably had masks shortage since March. It is so hard to believe some of the things that happened this year.
The consequences of that slave labor are far more on Chinese society than just the manufacturing dominance. There are a lot of things that are negative such as hatred of the CCP, that these policies are creating in China. The facade may look good, but there are cracks in China's foundation because of these decisions.
Depends on the face mask you're talking about here. A friend of my brother works for a company that makes unrelated clothing, furniture, and other comfort type items. They make all of their products here in the USA. They started up mask production in march. They're high quality washable cloth masks. I bought a few and have been using them when I need to go out. They're about twice the price of similar ones on amazon but much higher quality.
As for mass produced surgical masks? Yeah we don't have the manufacturing base for that sort of thing anymore unfortunately.
This is somewhere near the very bottom of a ranked list of US problems in this pandemic. Manufacturing takes time to significantly ramp up regardless of where it is, it’s not clear there would have been a major difference between what we did in waiting until we could buy more masks overseas vs waiting for US production to ramp up. And we had supposedly already alleviated this problem anyway with national stockpiles, except that those had not been maintained. Fixing that mistake is much easier and probably even more effective than undoing the globalization of the past few decades.
And honestly, by about April this year when China started having the virus under control and reopened their manufacturing sector at full capacity, it’s a good thing they were equipped to manufacture so many essential items. The US started running into capacity problems with some of the industries we do have like meat processing plants, if we relied more heavily on domestic manufacturing we actually would have been worse off over that period.
Average salary in Shenzhen (2019) was 127K yuan, or about $18K usd. Average salary (manufacturing) in the US is about $30K usd.
I'm sure that after you adjust for cost of living, the numbers more or less look equal. However, keep in mind that manufacturing is leaving Shenzhen because of rising wages.
Have as your "goal" less the desire to "win" the global competition for corporate profits & corporate headquartering of multinationals in your nation simply on grounds of labor/profit competitiveness, and take a more nationalist view of, where necessary, having state run enterprises or "free market" competition within your borders but not complete free trade in a global sense.
In other words, do no necessarily pursue as your goal to structure economy either to have most profitable companies that reduce costs by moving labor around the world to find cheapest workers, or those which try to export the most. Have as your goal at least to produce domestically as much as possible to satisfy domestic consumption demands, as well as having some minimal threshold of employed domestic workers.
As it stands, US has a massive trade deficit, and a decades long decline in working age male population, especially in "flyover" US regions where manufacturing has declined the most while not being replaced by equivalent jobs. These regions also have declining population, rising suicide & opiate death rates, declining family formation / birthrates.
The "telos" of our society should not put as its "end" an economy, especially one which pursues profit above all.
The economy should be a tool in service to outcomes we actually desire.
Like software built to do a job, not simply designed for the production of specific features.
This is where global financial capitalism (as the US has a giant capital surplus which balances its trade deficit) needs to be called into question.
Internal free markets is one thing. But not having a national industrial policy which prioritizes the well being of domestic workers and their families over well being of multinational corporations and banks makes our system quite degenerate over time.
People should really take a few minutes and watch these 2 videos explaining the current account[0] and capital account[1] relationship, and understand that how we operate now is a political choice, which has massive consequences on who benefits of this system accrue to, and who pays the costs of this system.
This system is maintained by having the reserve currency and the state using strong efforts over many years to not only maintain this GRC but strengthen it, not allowing the natural devaluation of the $ that would close these 2 imbalances and more closely balance capital and labor.
Also, it is not a requirement to have a well developed economy and run massive trade deficits or not have a thriving industrial sector. Germany and Japan are 2 examples that do not run giant trade deficits like the US [3]
This is an insightful comment that clarifies and distills some of my own thinking on the subject.
The blind pursuit of efficiency optimizes for the macro numbers at the expense of gutting the structure of the labor market and lived experience of people.
It’s far better to have a lower per capita GDP with a more equitable distribution of resources (such as a higher household income across quantiles)
It seems clear that some level of tariffs, caps on FDI, etc are “good inefficiencies” if done correctly.
In efficient, highly optimized economies such as the United States and most of the European Union, the border guards' job is to prevent people from entering and participating in those economies illegally.
In the countries with low GDPs and highly equitable distribution of resources -- North Korea, East Germany, Cuba, the Soviet Union, for example -- the border guards' job is to prevent people from escaping.
I think people are starting to realise that globalisation needs to be balanced with other kinds of security especially around tech, hence TSMC being given a stack of cash to build a fab in the US.
I wouldn’t say globalisation is dead more that it’s going to be more balanced going forward with local concerns.
So much of globalization up through the 2000s was exploitation of emerging markets for cheap labor and lax environmental and safety standards. This was not wholly without benefit to the people in these countries though: it has dragged a lot of the third world out of abject poverty despite some of the dystopian aspects. Hopefully the next three decades will be better on a number of fronts.
Consider Elon's move from California to Texas. His energy costs are vastly reduced, expenses generally are reduced, and he can continue to hire directly in the US and draw directly on US machine shop production capacity.
There should be more machining and making in the US; everyone would like to have solid US-made hardware, but success in small-business machining and manufacturing, and scaling to large scale without off-shoring, requires a discipline and commitment to self-improvement that is difficult to cultivate.
This monetary policy, and the consequent industrial policy ("free trade"), is, more than any other factor, the cause of the so-called "Great Stagnation." Its persistence is why the Great Stagnation is not over, despite some recent noises to the contrary. US growth will not resume until energy production does. With shale seemingly spent, nuclear too scary for most, and fusion perpetually 10 years off, growth is unlikely. The US will continue to "print" oil by printing dollars (h/t to Luke Gromen), care of Saudi Arabia, until it can't. The US will do anything and everything to ensure this continues, history is proof of that. When the US finally fails there will be a war. Not like Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. A very, very bad war. And the winner will determine monetary policy for the next century or so.
Had you shorted the US stock market in 2000 on that prediction/hunch, you would be down a lot. The economy has moved beyond manufacturing. Data, payment, and information processing and intellectual ropery have taken over manufacturing in importance.
There is national security interest in being able to manufacture our own weapons, computers, and infrastructure components. Otherwise if a war happens we may be in trouble.
I wouldn't have shorted the market based on that but I've not been sanguine about the US economy since then. Financial engineering, not productivity[1], has really been the driver of our economy...
It's a bi-partisan issue. Hell, I would agree it's not even a exclusively US issue but is pretty much generalized throughout the west.
Shifting manufacturing to China makes absolute sense when you look and care about the the quarterly/yearly performance. And if you decide not to do it well tough luck because your competitor is and will have better results than you.
If you look at it with a 20/30 years perspective then it becomes obvious that outsourcing is completely the wrong move. You basically get rid of your local expertise, train your replacements, slim down your middle class (the folks buying the products!). Then your manufacturing partner starts vertically integrating and designing it's own competing products and you are pretty much left out of the equation. It's almost as if, thanks to support from the party, Chinese businesses can plan for 20 years ahead but western companies can't because they HAVE to maximize the quarterly results!
> I argued that, even in the presence of free trade, a country should have the ability to tariff imports to the extent that that country could maintain a 25% (or something) domestic market share.
Tariffs and trade wars seem completely useless to me when done between G7 countries because we're all in the same situation regarding China. To achieve any sort of paradigm shift we'd need to stop each having a 1:1 relationship with China and start negotiating as a block.
I agree with some part of what you are saying, but tariffs are a miserably blunt instrument.
Think of the supply chain of something immensely complex like the Boeing 787, which has, quite literally, millions of parts (including LCD screens). Many if not most of those parts are imported. If there are tariffs on imports, either:
1. Boeing will pay tariffs, increasing the cost of each plane. Great for Airbus, bad for Boeing.
2. The parts are sourced locally instead. These parts will invariably be more expensive, as if there were cheaper local options, they would have been sourced locally before. Again, Boeing planes get more expensive, great for airbus, bad for Boeing.
3. Boeing, to avoid raising prices and giving market share to airbus, decides to move manufacturing outside the US.
What applies here for Boeing, is also going to apply to Tesla, Caterpillar, and hundreds of other companies. Tariffs create incentives to source locally, but they simultaneously create incentives to manufacture abroad. It is a very thin tightrope to walk and I haven't seen any evidence that Washington can.
On the topic of national security: “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will.”
I'm far less concerned about a war breaking out between two countries with healthy trade relations and cultural exchange. Do we want China to be our enemy? Why?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the US does not need any factories, as it can print any amount of money and buy whatever it wants from any country has factories. Money talks. Or not?
It has enough military for safely making this again and again for tens of years at least.
What happens when the other country isn't willing to sell? Consider a war or other disaster e.g. in the months before the pandemic, China stopped the export of face masks and other PPE, resulting in shortages in hospitals around the world.
There at other manufacturing centers than China. I don't know why people keep it repeating this line. Where do you think China gets their things made? It SE Asian countries. And they're making in roads to Africa. That's what we should be doing. We have a president talking about shhole countries-- destroying international relations is gonna do a lot more damage in a war. We should be building diverse business relationships with competing economies.
Countries are virtually never 'unwilling to sell', and there are quite a few different countries out there.
PPE shortages in hospitals were because of unprecedented demand levels, not because China didn't continue to export it. A country is actually a lot more likely to have problems handling that kind of short term demand shock if it relies entirely on domestic manufacturing
If not - the politics is involved in selling decision making - then the US starts a sanctions war, as China example shows. It sells in the end, but after being economically punished.
It was done for 2 reasons and planned out by Paul Volcker, and there is a speech to go with it if someone can find it.
1) USD reserves allow us to import more value than we export so it offers a better standard of life for the consumer than otherwise.
2) It allows us to have a bigger consumer market than we would otherwise have and incentive for countries to partner with us to sell their stuff to. If you've lived outside the US you know every business wants to sell their stuff here either as #1 or just after their home market.
Under those purposes it seems to have worked very well. Of course theres the risks of crashes along with it too.
I agree, but this seems to me to be something which unfortunately requires a generational strategy to repair, and I don't see how any government that's possible in this country could achieve it. The time horizons aren't long enough and the incentives aren't aligned enough to permit even a credible start.
The uncompetitiveness in manufacturing is due to two factors:
1. Regulations. Both the OSHA and EPA had a measurable negative impact on manufacturing productivity growth. [1] I suspect the most harmful regulations are those that constrain contract freedom by requiring employers to give unions a negotiating monopoly, aka collective bargaining, over any work unit where they emerge. This would devastate any of the bright spots in American industry today, whether it's Tesla, or Amazon, or Google. The threat of unionization also discourages these firms from expanding into areas that require employing high concentrations of less-skilled workers in immobile capital intensive projects, as these are the most susceptible to unionization.
2. The massive rise in social welfare spending [2], diverting capital from productive uses to unproductive ones.
Tariffs just cause US buyers to pay more without much help. Tariffs have no way to make a US manufacturer competitive globally. US made goods would just be that 25% more expensive. At its best its a regressive subsidy from one set of Americans to another.
Why not just a direct subsidy to US manufacturing under the usual tax code?
> Even if this anecdote is untrue, the point remains valid...
I mean, I guess the point remains valid in that everyone can see that a lot of manufacturing has left the US in the past, I dunno, fifty years. But if you don't even know whether the anecdote you mention is true, why bring it up? Why comment at all?
This was actually one of the good things that I thought -might- happen with the Trump regime despite all the other negatives. Guess what, nothing happened :( . We're still losing the ability to make stuff which is very scary in a world that is becoming China vs. The USA . There is price that isn't easy to express in $ that goes with the national security lost through losing a manufacturing base.
Non-affiliate links...: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08MXCG244 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07W2WP5F3