In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On June 02 2017 09:43 Sermokala wrote: Ignoring that Wind and solar energy has survived maturaization in a free market and is rapidly going past the need for subsidies. Ignoring its disproportionate benifit to rual and suburban users of electricity over urban users of electricity.
Theres the argument that its government bloat but it only holds water until it starts being a cost negative proposition for people. The less government mandated energy monopolies the less waste and more free market the energy industry is. If thats not conservative bread and butter then I don't know what could be.
Does coal/fracking/fossil fuels in general get subsidised in the US?
Yes the industries do in the form of a bunch of tax cuts on capital depreciation in order to lower the start up costs in getting the resources exploited. It would still be profitable to do it without them unlike solar and wind in their earlier days but with them its a lot easier to get capital sunk into these job creating fields.
On June 02 2017 09:43 Sermokala wrote: Ignoring that Wind and solar energy has survived maturaization in a free market and is rapidly going past the need for subsidies. Ignoring its disproportionate benifit to rual and suburban users of electricity over urban users of electricity.
Theres the argument that its government bloat but it only holds water until it starts being a cost negative proposition for people. The less government mandated energy monopolies the less waste and more free market the energy industry is. If thats not conservative bread and butter then I don't know what could be.
Does coal/fracking/fossil fuels in general get subsidised in the US?
Yes. Quite heavily.
Here's an example. If mining companies used to treat long term health damage to their employee as an externality they didn't have to worry about. If they made $1,000 and caused $2,000 of future health costs to an employee in the process then they'd still call that a $1,000 profit because they weren't the ones who had to pay the future health costs. The gov tried to force them to do it but they plead poverty, correctly identifying that their activity was actually a net loss on society and that if they were made to actually pay their externalities then the entire exercise would be economically irrational. So they compromised, everyone pays taxes, those taxes pay the long term health costs of coal miners, the liability is removed from the mining company's books and suddenly they're recording paper profits again.
Well the "earlier days" for coal are roughly 100 years ago, so i don't think it's an entirely fair comparison. Jobs through subsidies are also kind of a two edged sword, but i can't really comment on that since i don't know how much each industry receives.
edit: well doesn't that sound awesome. What about the steel industry, do they have the same "benefits"?
Asking that because one of the reasons of the "think tank" is that the paris accord would cut into military spending for your already, as they put it, depleted military (actual quote, not paraphrased).
Steel is a bit of a different animal as it begins to have Immediate strategic implications if the industry is to survive or not in america. As it is I'm pretty sure theres a direct tax benefit on the fuel they use to make it but I'm not 100% sure what that entails.
On June 02 2017 09:54 Sermokala wrote: Steel is a bit of a different animal as it begins to have Immediate strategic implications if the industry is to survive or not in america. As it is I'm pretty sure theres a direct tax benefit on the fuel they use to make it but I'm not 100% sure what that entails.
What do you mean by immediate strategic implications?
On June 02 2017 09:54 Sermokala wrote: Steel is a bit of a different animal as it begins to have Immediate strategic implications if the industry is to survive or not in america. As it is I'm pretty sure theres a direct tax benefit on the fuel they use to make it but I'm not 100% sure what that entails.
What do you mean by immediate strategic implications?
Apart from the herp derp WW3 aspect its used a lot of manufacturing industries. If we didn't produce enough for our local industries we'd go to war if it was denied to us for some reason. Even non war material production we're talking general manufacturing and infrastructure industries would be at risk.
also with energy, speaking from a production pov, it really only matters if you can make energy or not. It doesn't really matter wether you get it buy burning wood, coal or marshmallows. So that would be like cutting power plants and instead rely on importing energy elsewhere.
Whereas paris would be more about changing how you're getting your energy
Oh, even JP is denouncing Trump on this it seems: Japan says U.S. withdrawal from global climate pact regrettable would have honestly not expected that. I always get the impression that they and S.Korea are trying to play really nice with the US and that only EU, China and maybe Australia will speak out
On June 02 2017 09:54 Sermokala wrote: Steel is a bit of a different animal as it begins to have Immediate strategic implications if the industry is to survive or not in america. As it is I'm pretty sure theres a direct tax benefit on the fuel they use to make it but I'm not 100% sure what that entails.
What do you mean by immediate strategic implications?
Say Chinese steel is undercutting American steel. American companies are buying Chinese steel and American steel companies are going under. When those companies go under it's not just the single company that is lost, you'll also lose the skilled workers who will age out of the industry and not be replaced, the facilities, the impact of the business up and down the supply line (iron ore companies going under, nearby ports that used to be the distribution hub for the steel mills etc) and those in turn have their own existing investments and skillsets that also can't be replaced.
Businesses do not exist in isolation, they're closer to an ecosystem. There is essentially no manufacturing in the UK these days but if a patriotic company were to decide to make everything in the UK they'd find they just couldn't do it. You cannot simply create an economic system with central planning, without the skilled labour, the available supply of components, the infrastructure, the availability of raw materials and so forth it would immediately fail. And those can't be built overnight, they take a long time to build. In our example of a lost steel industry you'd have to fund the establishment of steel training programs in technical colleges, find some tutors for those, set up a bunch of scholarships, import experts from friendly nations to help advise you on building the mill, fund the refitting of a nearby cargo port and heavy plant rail links, fund the establishment of a longshoreman apprenticeship scheme and so forth and even then you've still got to find the coal and iron ore from somewhere.
This is important because some industries are strategically important. Steel is an example of one of those. The United State's national security depends upon the United States having the ability to supply its own steel if it needs to. The government may not need to buy American steel, but it does need to be able to buy American steel. The same applies to some kinds of manufacturing such as microelectronics, aerospace industries, chemicals and so forth.
Interestingly enough the EU was designed to fall victim to exactly this problem intentionally. The proto-EU was the European Coal and Steel Community whereby the central European powers established a single market for coal and steel, free of subsidies and tariffs. The idea was that the heavy industries would become so intermingled and mutually dependent that France could no longer rely on French steel and coal in a war against Germany and Germany could no longer rely upon German steel and coal in a war against France. The strategic industries were mutually compromised to ensure peace.
On June 02 2017 09:54 Sermokala wrote: Steel is a bit of a different animal as it begins to have Immediate strategic implications if the industry is to survive or not in america. As it is I'm pretty sure theres a direct tax benefit on the fuel they use to make it but I'm not 100% sure what that entails.
What do you mean by immediate strategic implications?
Say Chinese steel is undercutting American steel. American companies are buying Chinese steel and American steel companies are going under. When those companies go under it's not just the single company that is lost, you'll also lose the skilled workers who will age out of the industry and not be replaced, the facilities, the impact of the business up and down the supply line (iron ore companies going under, nearby ports that used to be the distribution hub for the steel mills etc) and those in turn have their own existing investments and skillsets that also can't be replaced.
Businesses do not exist in isolation, they're closer to an ecosystem. There is essentially no manufacturing in the UK these days but if a patriotic company were to decide to make everything in the UK they'd find they just couldn't do it. You cannot simply create an economic system with central planning, without the skilled labour, the available supply of components, the infrastructure, the availability of raw materials and so forth it would immediately fail. And those can't be built overnight, they take a long time to build.
This is important because some industries are strategically important. Steel is an example of one of those. The United State's national security depends upon the United States having the ability to supply its own steel if it needs to. The government may not need to buy American steel, but it does need to be able to buy American steel. The same applies to some kinds of manufacturing such as microelectronics, aerospace industries, chemicals and so forth.
Interestingly enough the EU was designed to fall victim to exactly this problem intentionally. The proto-EU was the European Coal and Steel Community whereby the central European powers established a single market for coal and steel, free of subsidies and tariffs. The idea was that the heavy industries would become so intermingled and mutually dependent that France could no longer rely on French steel and coal in a war against Germany and Germany could no longer rely upon German steel and coal in a war against France. The strategic industries were mutually compromised to ensure peace.
Interesting read, cheers. Didn't really grasp the concept of national security relying on the steel industry, i guess as a german that concept got lost somewhere.
It's one of those odd cases where the real value of an economic activity is poorly reflected by the free market because positive externalities aren't taken into account. You look at the profits from the steel but not at the value of the economic ecosystem that exists around it and relies upon it.
It's also the reason why China deliberately undervalued its currency to subsidize huge investments in China. If they make it economically rational for you to manufacture in China then the very existence of that manufacturing will passively transfer vital skills and experience to China, increase demand for raw materials within China, create paying users for cargo ports, heavy rail lines and so forth and they don't have to subsidize any of that stuff. It kicks off a chain reaction and pretty soon it doesn't even matter whether China is actually cheaper, you go to China to make your stuff because China is the only place with an established supply of whatever your raw materials are and a skilled workforce who can do what you need.
It's actually a pretty big problem, unless we learn to stop fighting each other, in which case it's fucking awesome.
That's not necessarily dumb though. You have to get investors to invest, and that sounds like a rad incentive. Certainly more so than "well if you don't build here even though it's uneconomical for you, we put tariffs on it".
Also seems to only really work for manual labour stuff (and possibly electronics), in regards to engineering etc they seem to lag behind quite far still.
edit: also, as long as there is a stench to "made in china", i feel like they actually need a big incentive for people to invest. Regardless of how good some chinese goods are (mainly electronics i guess).
Engineering is certainly harder to transfer. There the ecosystem is much more dependent upon government contracts and grants, established research institutions, effective educational institutions and so forth. Engineering firms cannot exist without a supply of highly skilled engineering graduates while engineering schools can't exist without firms hiring those graduates. It's a difficult industry to break into. However if the US does choose to ignore emerging green techs then those will also move to better economic climates and, as we were discussing yesterday, once a nation falls behind it's very difficult and expensive to catch up. By withdrawing from Paris the US is risking losing the entire economic ecosystem dependent on emerging green tech.
It's also one of the reasons the US desperately needs to review its current student visa program. People from all over the world come to the US, get doctorates in cutting edge fields, and then get deported for not finding a job in their field (barred from taking any jobs outside of their field) fast enough (employer has to sponsor their employment visa when student visa expires, a lot are reluctant to go to that effort). It's insane. It should just be "get a doctorate in one of these fields we think are super valuable from a good university and you get a conditional 5 year green card". Let them work in McDonalds while applying for jobs in their field if need be, just keep them in the country.
On June 02 2017 10:52 m4ini wrote: That kinda seems like the ultimate insult, especially if this movement grows - which i kinda expect through at least the blue states.
Where there is also some Red States like Georgia where Atlanta says it is aiming for full renewable energy.
As a not entirely unrelated note, who's in store for 2020? I wouldn't put it behind america to actually re-elect the buffoon, i'm just wondering who could run against him.
And how high are the chances of Michelle running, because i'd love to see her and the great one in a TV debate.
She has no experience, that's why I'm hoping Clinton runs for Mayor of New York so she can at least satisfy her ego for the well being of the country. So it's leaning towards Biden, Sanders, and maybe even Jerry Brown of California.
On June 02 2017 10:53 KwarK wrote: Engineering is certainly harder to transfer. There the ecosystem is much more dependent upon government contracts and grants, established research institutions, effective educational institutions and so forth. Engineering firms cannot exist without a supply of highly skilled engineering graduates while engineering schools can't exist without firms hiring those graduates. It's a difficult industry to break into. However if the US does choose to ignore emerging green techs then those will also move to better economic climates and, as we were discussing yesterday, once a nation falls behind it's very difficult and expensive to catch up. By withdrawing from Paris the US is risking losing the entire economic ecosystem dependent on emerging green tech.
It's also one of the reasons the US desperately needs to review its current student visa program. People from all over the world come to the US, get doctorates in cutting edge fields, and then get deported for not finding a job in their field (barred from taking any jobs outside of their field) fast enough (employer has to sponsor their employment visa when student visa expires, a lot are reluctant to go to that effort). It's insane.
That's what i was trying to get at when i said the US willingly gave up the leadership to europe and china (of all countries). Because especially china, in the green sector, could become a major player. Especially if they work together with europe, which starts to look quite reasonable/possible.
edit:
Aw, to bad in regards to Michelle. For some reason i imagine her close to the boiling point, she always came off as the fiery type to me.
It's also one of the reasons the US desperately needs to review its current student visa program. People from all over the world come to the US, get doctorates in cutting edge fields, and then get deported for not finding a job in their field (barred from taking any jobs outside of their field) fast enough (employer has to sponsor their employment visa when student visa expires, a lot are reluctant to go to that effort). It's insane. It should just be "get a doctorate in one of these fields we think are super valuable from a good university and you get a conditional 5 year green card". Let them work in McDonalds while applying for jobs in their field if need be, just keep them in the country.
I think that's down to the whole education system. It has to compete with the european model which makes it easy(easier) to get a visa and renew it, the tuition is free, you're allowed to work, it's easy to stay after your degree, in regards to engineering etc (obviously different for art majors and what not) it's not that hard to find jobs (and if you don't, you can still stay and get supported until you do).
I wasn't exaggerating earlier when i said that 50% stay after getting their degree in germany. That's an official number. Which i find ridiculously high.
EPT
