Would you support subsidizing...

[MisterBeale]

It's a completely false comparison.

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

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

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

Venezuela's problems have nothing to do with that.

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

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

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

IN SHORT, you are making a false equivalency fallacy.

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


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

So you think socialism works then?

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

 

[dblack]

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

Venezuela's problems have nothing to do with that.

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

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

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

IN SHORT, you are making a false equivalency fallacy.

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


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

So you think socialism works then?

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

It depends. . . should we have a military?

Jukin' and jivin'.

I don't think government should be subsidizing industry, it shouldn't be dictating the priorities of the economy. Do you?

Do you realize that that's the essence of socialism? I guess not.

 

[Brain357]

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

Venezuela's problems have nothing to do with that.

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

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

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

IN SHORT, you are making a false equivalency fallacy.

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


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

So you think socialism works then?

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

Not at all. The OP is discussing subsidizing industry. Venezuela does a lot of that. I don’t like the results.

 

[Dick Foster]

...U.S. re-industrialization?

Why or why not?

I don't believe subsidies are ever justified. In a way its stealing the natual rules of the free market and how it works to keep things the most efficient and beneficial to end consumers. However I do believe in a fair and even playing field for fair competion so I do support any measures that are aimed to achieve that goal including tariffs imposed on those bending free market rules.
In a way I see subsidies as socialist and collective in nature which has been shown over and over again by whatever name you choose to be folly and doomed to failure from the outset.

 

[Brain357]

...U.S. re-industrialization?

Why or why not?

I don't believe subsidies are ever justified. In a way its stealing the natual rules of the free market and how it works to keep things the most efficient and beneficial to end consumers. However I do believe in a fair and even playing field for fair competion so I do support any measures that are aimed to achieve that goal including tariffs imposed on those bending free market rules.
In a way I see subsidies as socialist and collective in nature which has been shown over and over again by whatever name you choose to be folly and doomed to failure from the outset.

While I Mostly agree with you, I would like to point out tariffs have the same success rate.

 

[Missourian]

Just FWIW...I travel to hundreds of factories a year...and the automation is no where near the level the laymanwould expect.

...U.S. re-industrialization?

Why or why not?

No. I would not.

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

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

This is what we want more of?

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand your point. And if free markets operated in a vacuum I would agree...but there is more involved that the free hand of the market.

 

[MisterBeale]

Venezuela's problems have nothing to do with that.

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

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

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

IN SHORT, you are making a false equivalency fallacy.

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


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

So you think socialism works then?

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

It depends. . . should we have a military?

You dodged a lot...

No. . . my original contention on that whole matter was, some industries should be subsidized, ONLY BASED ON NATIONAL SECURITY GROUNDS.

This is the only reason we have the AG BILL.

If you believe we should even have a government, or if that is the reason we have a government in the first place, FOR NATIONAL SECURITY, that was my original participation in the thread.

You folks are putting up straw-men. i.e. Socialism, government choosing winners and losers, etc. Stop being so hyperbolic. I just don't think the nation should be at the mercy of just in time production and just in time international supply chains for critical necessities. If you have a better solution for this problem? I am all ears.

I suggest you go back and read my very cautious and measured response to the OP.


If, indeed, we accept the premise, that the job of the government is to stabilize society, that it should find someway to mitigate against the affects of "just in time" production for goods, that we as a society deem as critical to the orderly functioning of society. THAT is all I was trying to putting forward.

". . .Natural and man-made disasters will disrupt the flow of energy, goods and services. The down-stream customers of those goods and services will, in turn, not be able to produce their product or render their service because they were counting on incoming deliveries "just in time" and so have little or no inventory to work with. The disruption to the economic system will cascade to some degree depending on the nature and severity of the original disaster.[46][47] The larger the disaster the worse the effect on just-in-time failures. Electrical power is the ultimate example of just-in-time delivery. A severe geomagnetic storm could disrupt electrical power delivery for hours to years, locally or even globally. Lack of supplies on hand to repair the electrical system would have catastrophic effects.[48]"
Just-in-time manufacturing - Wikipedia

Now, if, on the OTH, you do not believe we should be civilized, or even have a government, or that government should not have a national security role? I can respect that too.

 

[Brain357]

So you think socialism works then?

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

It depends. . . should we have a military?

You dodged a lot...

No. . . my original contention on that whole matter was, some industries should be subsidized, ONLY BASED ON NATIONAL SECURITY GROUNDS.

This is the only reason we have the AG BILL.

If you believe we should even have a government, or if that is the reason we have a government in the first place, FOR NATIONAL SECURITY, that was my original participation in the thread.

You folks are putting up straw-men. i.e. Socialism, government choosing winners and losers, etc. Stop being so hyperbolic. I just don't think the nation should be at the mercy of just in time production and just in time international supply chains for critical necessities. If you have a better solution for this problem? I am all ears.

I suggest you go back and read my very cautious and measured response to the OP.


If, indeed, we accept the premise, that the job of the government is to stabilize society, that it should find someway to mitigate against the affects of "just in time" production for goods, that we as a society deem as critical to the orderly functioning of society. THAT is all I was trying to putting forward.

". . .Natural and man-made disasters will disrupt the flow of energy, goods and services. The down-stream customers of those goods and services will, in turn, not be able to produce their product or render their service because they were counting on incoming deliveries "just in time" and so have little or no inventory to work with. The disruption to the economic system will cascade to some degree depending on the nature and severity of the original disaster.[46][47] The larger the disaster the worse the effect on just-in-time failures. Electrical power is the ultimate example of just-in-time delivery. A severe geomagnetic storm could disrupt electrical power delivery for hours to years, locally or even globally. Lack of supplies on hand to repair the electrical system would have catastrophic effects.[48]"
Just-in-time manufacturing - Wikipedia

Now, if, on the OTH, you do not believe we should be civilized, or even have a government, or that government should not have a national security role? I can respect that too.

What you are suggesting just doesn’t work. Do we have a shortage of something now? What problem are you trying to fix?

 

[Missourian]

This is exactly why I took a hiatus. Everyone is so enthralled with the art of "winning" the argument that nothing is accomplished but the arguing.

 

[MisterBeale]

Venezuela's problems have nothing to do with that.

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

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

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

IN SHORT, you are making a false equivalency fallacy.

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


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

So you think socialism works then?

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

It depends. . . should we have a military?

Jukin' and jivin'.

I don't think government should be subsidizing industry, it shouldn't be dictating the priorities of the economy. Do you?

Do you realize that that's the essence of socialism? I guess not.

My original participation in the thread was comparing certain critical industries with the Agricultural sector.

I am well aware of your political and economic stances, you are pretty dogmatic and extreme in your POV, were it up to you, you would have them get rid of the AG Bill as well too, I have no doubt.


I can respect that.

Though I am not sure it would be beneficial for domestic national security in the long run.

 

[Brain357]

This is exactly why I took a hiatus. Everyone is so enthralled with the art of "winning" the argument that nothing is accomplished but the arguing.

Some arguing is necessary otherwise we land on a bad idea.

 

[Andylusion]

Just FWIW...I travel to hundreds of factories a year...and the automation is no where near the level the laymanwould expect.

...U.S. re-industrialization?

Why or why not?

No. I would not.

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

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

This is what we want more of?

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand your point. And if free markets operated in a vacuum I would agree...but there is more involved that the free hand of the market.

Give me an example?

Obviously we have markets that are highly regulated, and thus are not free by any stretch. But there are other markets, that are very free.

 

[Dick Foster]

This is exactly why I took a hiatus. Everyone is so enthralled with the art of "winning" the argument that nothing is accomplished but the arguing.

Some arguing is necessary otherwise we land on a bad idea.

It seems to me you argue simply to argue and rarely if ever have anything noteworthy to add to any conversation. Basically I think you just like to pretend to have experience when you actually have none. It really is impossible to fake actual experience so you would do well to stop trying. The only person you're fooling is yourself.

 

[Brain357]

This is exactly why I took a hiatus. Everyone is so enthralled with the art of "winning" the argument that nothing is accomplished but the arguing.

Some arguing is necessary otherwise we land on a bad idea.

It seems to me you argue simply to argue and rarely if ever have anything noteworthy to add to any conversation. Basically I think you just like to pretend to have experience when you actually have none. It really is impossible to fake actual experience so you would do well to stop trying. The only person you're fooling is yourself.

In regards to what? We seemed to be in agreement on subsidies...

 

[Missourian]

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

It depends. . . should we have a military?

You dodged a lot...

No. . . my original contention on that whole matter was, some industries should be subsidized, ONLY BASED ON NATIONAL SECURITY GROUNDS.

This is the only reason we have the AG BILL.

If you believe we should even have a government, or if that is the reason we have a government in the first place, FOR NATIONAL SECURITY, that was my original participation in the thread.

You folks are putting up straw-men. i.e. Socialism, government choosing winners and losers, etc. Stop being so hyperbolic. I just don't think the nation should be at the mercy of just in time production and just in time international supply chains for critical necessities. If you have a better solution for this problem? I am all ears.

I suggest you go back and read my very cautious and measured response to the OP.


If, indeed, we accept the premise, that the job of the government is to stabilize society, that it should find someway to mitigate against the affects of "just in time" production for goods, that we as a society deem as critical to the orderly functioning of society. THAT is all I was trying to putting forward.

". . .Natural and man-made disasters will disrupt the flow of energy, goods and services. The down-stream customers of those goods and services will, in turn, not be able to produce their product or render their service because they were counting on incoming deliveries "just in time" and so have little or no inventory to work with. The disruption to the economic system will cascade to some degree depending on the nature and severity of the original disaster.[46][47] The larger the disaster the worse the effect on just-in-time failures. Electrical power is the ultimate example of just-in-time delivery. A severe geomagnetic storm could disrupt electrical power delivery for hours to years, locally or even globally. Lack of supplies on hand to repair the electrical system would have catastrophic effects.[48]"
Just-in-time manufacturing - Wikipedia

Now, if, on the OTH, you do not believe we should be civilized, or even have a government, or that government should not have a national security role? I can respect that too.

What you are suggesting just doesn’t work. Do we have a shortage of something now? What problem are you trying to fix?

This is exactly why I took a hiatus. Everyone is so enthralled with the art of "winning" the argument that nothing is accomplished but the arguing.

Some arguing is necessary otherwise we land on a bad idea.

Arguing is fine. Attempting to "win" for the sake of "winning" is not.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

...U.S. re-industrialization?

Why or why not?

You need to be more specific.

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

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

Subscribed...

Me too

I'd like the USA to take care of the USA. Sure be charitable, when weren't we? Take care of our borders, confront BS front on, including immigration and crime. Call people who they are, call-out safe spaces & PC, and then watch as common sense, decency, USA traditionalism & culture returns.

People say w/o China we couldn't afford the stuff we need. That's a lie, what you need is less shit.

USA was the only game in town. Quit imports we're still world champions, and China would lag further behind.

 

[Flash]

NO

...welfare

...subsidizes

...grants

...bailouts

...entitlements

 

[Dragonlady]

...U.S. re-industrialization?

Why or why not?

You need to be more specific.

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

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

In other words, you would want the government to pick winners and losers. No. I would not be in favour of that.

 

[Desperado]

well if the government is telling people to avoid your product, be it airlines, cruise lines or restaurants they have a responsibility to make amends for the money you lost. Divert all foreign aid and use it to help companies and people hurt by this virus. The government if they had the balls would take it out of the money we owe China

 

[MisterBeale]

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

It depends. . . should we have a military?

You dodged a lot...

No. . . my original contention on that whole matter was, some industries should be subsidized, ONLY BASED ON NATIONAL SECURITY GROUNDS.

This is the only reason we have the AG BILL.

If you believe we should even have a government, or if that is the reason we have a government in the first place, FOR NATIONAL SECURITY, that was my original participation in the thread.

You folks are putting up straw-men. i.e. Socialism, government choosing winners and losers, etc. Stop being so hyperbolic. I just don't think the nation should be at the mercy of just in time production and just in time international supply chains for critical necessities. If you have a better solution for this problem? I am all ears.

I suggest you go back and read my very cautious and measured response to the OP.


If, indeed, we accept the premise, that the job of the government is to stabilize society, that it should find someway to mitigate against the affects of "just in time" production for goods, that we as a society deem as critical to the orderly functioning of society. THAT is all I was trying to putting forward.

". . .Natural and man-made disasters will disrupt the flow of energy, goods and services. The down-stream customers of those goods and services will, in turn, not be able to produce their product or render their service because they were counting on incoming deliveries "just in time" and so have little or no inventory to work with. The disruption to the economic system will cascade to some degree depending on the nature and severity of the original disaster.[46][47] The larger the disaster the worse the effect on just-in-time failures. Electrical power is the ultimate example of just-in-time delivery. A severe geomagnetic storm could disrupt electrical power delivery for hours to years, locally or even globally. Lack of supplies on hand to repair the electrical system would have catastrophic effects.[48]"
Just-in-time manufacturing - Wikipedia

Now, if, on the OTH, you do not believe we should be civilized, or even have a government, or that government should not have a national security role? I can respect that too.

What you are suggesting just doesn’t work. Do we have a shortage of something now? What problem are you trying to fix?

The fact that the AG BILL works, demonstrates empirically, IMO, we can do something.

From this point on? We shall just have to agree to disagree.

Now, I will agree with you, that there are many that absolutely HATE the AG BILL, on that, we can agree. Small farmers, international producers, organic farmers, poor farmers that are overseas, etc.

But, IMO, that AG BILL stabilizes prices for domestic consumers, especially the poor people in this nation.

I guess you haven't been paying attention. Most folks that work in the medical community KNOW there is a shortage of face masks. These were all produced in China. The Chinese government is determining where they will send all of the face-masks that they produce throughout the world.

Doesn't it bother you that China has got handle on this pandemic already, but they have a near monopoly on the production and control of medical supplies?

In essence. the Chinese government gets to decide where the pandemic spreads the quickest. They could also do this if we were in a military confrontation with them.

Not Enough Face Masks Are Made In America To Deal With Coronavirus
Not Enough Face Masks Are Made In America To Deal With Coronavirus

". . .The seeds of that problem, says Bowen, can be traced back 15 years. That's when many mask factories moved overseas, where masks could be made at a fraction of Bowen's costs.

Most notably, he says, Kimberly-Clark, which used to be one of the industry leaders, moved its operations.

"The surgical mask supply went from being 90% U.S.-made to being 95% foreign-made in literally one year," Bowen says.

For years, Bowen tried to get the government to pay attention to this issue. He wrote letters to Presidents Obama and Trump, warning that an epidemic could prompt China to stop exporting its supply, leaving American health care in a bind.

He wanted the U.S. government to mandate that hospitals buy more American-made products.

"If every hospital would pay just a few cents more for a mask, there wouldn't be an issue here," he says.

The coronavirus is proving Bowen right. Now, he has the administration's attention.

Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar told the House Appropriations Committee that the country needs 25 times more masks than it currently has stockpiled.. . ." (npr.org)

U.S. Dependence on Pharmaceutical Products From China

America's Monopoly Crisis Hits the Military | The American Conservative

Coronavirus Spurs U.S. Efforts to End China’s Chokehold on Drugs

China pushes all-out production of face masks in virus fight

People line up outside a drugstore in the northeastern Chinese city of Dalian, hoping to buy facemasks on Jan. 31.