In today's business news..

[Starman]

So, Starman, when a foreign govt uses it's power as a state to tilt the playing field, what should our state do? Ignore it and let them destroy an industry that could compete? No names, no snark, a simple question.

Tariffs didn't work when Obama used them, and it won't work now. Why chase bad policies with more bad policies? Tariffs are a left-of-center neo-liberal idea (this is where Trump is comfortable and he only has his blind supporters fooled), and no one in favor of a small government should be for this. When Obama placed tariffs on cheap Chinese solar panels, the hue and cry was that OMG this will kill all sorts of small businesses here in the U.S. which rely on those parts. Why does anyone think anything will be different this time around? It will work politically, but not economically. Many small-business solar installers have already laid off workers, even before the tariffs were enacted but they knew they were coming.

In short, let the markets work. Let capitalism work. Unfettered. It doesn't matter if China is using subsidies to tilt the playing field. If one believes in pure capitalism, you let it work. Or, another way to look at it is that China is subsidizing the U.S. migration towards renewables by providing cheap solar panels. Let them.

Increasing employment through manufacturing is a false argument too. Most of these factories are automated, and don't employ that many people, have a long ramp-up time, and require lots of capital. It's not like there's tons of idle capacity just ready to go.

Now, to adress the education issue. Do you think that just maybe if we weight the amount of available student loans to favor career fields that we are lacking graduates in vice fields of study that yield no economic advantage, that might help? Say %20 of govt backed loans towards soft things like sociology and gender studies, and %80 towards math, science, and other fields where we need to import workers? Hows that sound?

I don't believe the government should be in the loans-for-education business. At all. So, no, I'm afraid that doesn't resonate with me all that much. Sorry.

 

[glhs837]

Tariffs didn't work when Obama used them, and it won't work now. Why chase bad policies with more bad policies? Tariffs are a left-of-center neo-liberal idea (this is where Trump is comfortable and he only has his blind supporters fooled), and no one in favor of a small government should be for this. When Obama placed tariffs on cheap Chinese solar panels, the hue and cry was that OMG this will kill all sorts of small businesses here in the U.S. which rely on those parts. Why does anyone think anything will be different this time around? It will work politically, but not economically. Many small-business solar installers have already laid off workers, even before the tariffs were enacted but they knew they were coming.

In short, let the markets work. Let capitalism work. Unfettered. It doesn't matter if China is using subsidies to tilt the playing field. If one believes in pure capitalism, you let it work. Or, another way to look at it is that China is subsidizing the U.S. migration towards renewables by providing cheap solar panels. Let them.

Increasing employment through manufacturing is a false argument too. Most of these factories are automated, and don't employ that many people, have a long ramp-up time, and require lots of capital. It's not like there's tons of idle capacity just ready to go.







I don't believe the government should be in the loans-for-education business. At all. So, no, I'm afraid that doesn't resonate with me all that much. Sorry.

1. So how does a govt throwing it's weight behind it's industry = pure capitalism? I'm all for competition, but it should be fair. You didn't answer that part of the question. And I didnt talk about increasing employment, but rather employment conservation, if you will. When a US based company, even one owned by Chinese interests goes under, Americans lose jobs they had. Those plants were already stood up, and now stand idle.


2. Oh, I don't think they should be either, but there's lots of things I don't personally agree with but understand that it's a thing that's going to be anyway, no mtter how I feel about it and base my answer on that understanding. But if they are going to be in the loan guarantee business, lets at least agree they should allow more of those for fields that bring economic benefit, not degrees in underwater gender-neutral basket weaving. For the same reason that I dont agree we should allow 11 million or more illegals to remain here, I also realize that it's simply not possible to remove them all, and so any answer about what to about them from me recognizes that reality. You dont get to skip the question by saying you dont agree with the reality that is.

 

[Starman]

1. So how does a govt throwing it's weight behind it's industry = pure capitalism?

It doesn't, but like I said, you don't countenance bad policy with more bad policy. Solar prices have been dropping precipitously, perhaps this is a veiled attempt to pander to his base and make coal comparatively more competitive. Again, silly if solar is already dropping.

I'm all for competition, but it should be fair. You didn't answer that part of the question. And I didnt talk about increasing employment, but rather employment conservation, if you will. When a US based company, even one owned by Chinese interests goes under, Americans lose jobs they had. Those plants were already stood up, and now stand idle.

Don't care about "fair". We do this sort of thing all the time -- subsidize certain pet industries. So to answer your question, you do nothing.

I realize you didn't specifically mention employment numbers, but many are. There's not that much idle capacity, the tariffs expire in four years, which isn't a lot of time to jump-start this industry.

2. Oh, I don't think they should be either, but there's lots of things I don't personally agree with but understand that it's a thing that's going to be anyway, no mtter how I feel about it and base my answer on that understanding. But if they are going to be in the loan guarantee business, lets at least agree they should allow more of those for fields that bring economic benefit, not degrees in underwater gender-neutral basket weaving. For the same reason that I dont agree we should allow 11 million or more illegals to remain here, I also realize that it's simply not possible to remove them all, and so any answer about what to about them from me recognizes that reality. You dont get to skip the question by saying you dont agree with the reality that is.

Nothing wrong with a pragmatic approach, but I just don't go that far. I often deal with things philosophically as I'd like them to be, not as they are. I realize the government will be in the loans-for-education business for a long time. One of the reasons that Trump was able to reach a lot of fly-over country people and win the election is because he spoke to them in a way which reached them. He understood that trade deals like NAFTA have shuttered the factories they worked in for generations and they've seen their jobs disappear. Maybe some have left those areas and gone on to something new. But most have had quite sometime to re-tool their education and learn new skills. But they don't. It's much easier to blame others for something long-gone, I dunno. I just don't have a lot of faith in the model you describe. We've too much evidence that as a nation we don't value getting some education to try a new direction in life when the current one isn't working out.

 

[Monello]

Got it.

So you hate freedom of association too. You collectivists are a trip.

Careful you don't throw your back out stretching that far. On 2nd thought, with your amazing flexibility, you should join the circus.

 

[Starman]

Careful you don't throw your back out stretching that far. On 2nd thought, with your amazing flexibility, you should join the circus.

No stretch required, champ. You state as much in your own words daily.

 

[glhs837]

It doesn't, but like I said, you don't countenance bad policy with more bad policy. Solar prices have been dropping precipitously, perhaps this is a veiled attempt to pander to his base and make coal comparatively more competitive. Again, silly if solar is already dropping.



Don't care about "fair". We do this sort of thing all the time -- subsidize certain pet industries. So to answer your question, you do nothing.

I realize you didn't specifically mention employment numbers, but many are. There's not that much idle capacity, the tariffs expire in four years, which isn't a lot of time to jump-start this industry.




Nothing wrong with a pragmatic approach, but I just don't go that far. I often deal with things philosophically as I'd like them to be, not as they are. I realize the government will be in the loans-for-education business for a long time. One of the reasons that Trump was able to reach a lot of fly-over country people and win the election is because he spoke to them in a way which reached them. He understood that trade deals like NAFTA have shuttered the factories they worked in for generations and they've seen their jobs disappear. Maybe some have left those areas and gone on to something new. But most have had quite sometime to re-tool their education and learn new skills. But they don't. It's much easier to blame others for something long-gone, I dunno. I just don't have a lot of faith in the model you describe. We've too much evidence that as a nation we don't value getting some education to try a new direction in life when the current one isn't working out.

1. So, you do nothing and let another nation economically wreck a domestic industry? I'm open to exapmples of the US subidizing any industry with the goal of econonically wiping out another nations domestic industry. I'm generally against subisidies, see ethanol and other examples. But requiring a product to have certain attributes bought and paid for by that industry is not the same thing as giving an ecomonic advantge so your company has an unfair advantage over. You could look for veiled reasons to do this, but Occam Razor says you should accept the obvious and blatant reason before hunting for others. Add in the laundry equipment piece and that makes more sense. Now maybe the LG and Samsung bits were clever misdirection, but I refer back to Occams Razor. And the fact that you soon fall into what I call the Bush Conumdrum. Where you argue both that your subject is an evil genius playing four D chess, and that they are an incompetent idiot at the same time.

2. You seem be connecting these two things, the closing industries and the educational piece. And while the clsoing factories thing does have an educational piece, retraining workers from closing industries to work new jobs was not the point. The study mentioned was about new generations, and the educational/working life pathways society fosters for them. We have allowed what I call the Edu-Industrial Complex to promulgate this meme that every single kid leaving high school needs to be on a four year degree track, and built this system around that idea.