Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On January 17 2021 16:38 Biff The Understudy wrote: According to the NYT, Biden will start with a blitz of executive orders which will be rescinding the travel ban on several predominantly Muslim countries, rejoining the Paris climate change accord, extending pandemic-related limits on evictions and student loan payments, issuing a mask mandate for federal property and interstate travel and ordering agencies to figure out how to reunite children separated from families after crossing the border.
That's what I call a good start.
I'm hoping it's a start on showing Republicans that they don't just get to wreak whatever havoc they like and get away with it. He's making it very clear he wants to undo the damage Trump did. It's a good start, but he was given a great big mess to deal with. He'll need to do quite a bit to right the ship.
Trump tried to undo what Obama did. Biden will try to undo what Trump did. The wonders of 2 party politics.
Problem is its easier to tear down then build back up again.
I think it would more appropriate that Trump tried to destroy everything Obama did and that Biden will try to rebuild it. Re-entering the Paris treaty or re-installing environmental environment is not "destroying" anything imo.
On January 17 2021 16:38 Biff The Understudy wrote: According to the NYT, Biden will start with a blitz of executive orders which will be rescinding the travel ban on several predominantly Muslim countries, rejoining the Paris climate change accord, extending pandemic-related limits on evictions and student loan payments, issuing a mask mandate for federal property and interstate travel and ordering agencies to figure out how to reunite children separated from families after crossing the border.
That's what I call a good start.
I'm hoping it's a start on showing Republicans that they don't just get to wreak whatever havoc they like and get away with it. He's making it very clear he wants to undo the damage Trump did. It's a good start, but he was given a great big mess to deal with. He'll need to do quite a bit to right the ship.
Trump tried to undo what Obama did. Biden will try to undo what Trump did. The wonders of 2 party politics.
Problem is its easier to tear down then build back up again.
It has never been thus bad though, yes both parties are going to push there agenda when they get in power but to completely unmake the last administration is going to be hell of a seesaw. Republicans opened a pandoras box, one of many they opened and we are going to have to have to see how America copes with theses massive swings ever 4 to 8 years.
On January 18 2021 04:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I think they won't even notice most of it. Just like when trump undid stuff.
lets take environmental regs
Trump and republicans spent 4 years destroying any type of oversight and environmental protections. Hell a lot of republicans still thing climate change is some fairy tail myth.
So now biden comes along and spends his 4 to 8 years putting all that back in place. Then say a hypothetical president Pence spends his 4-8 years braking it all back down. Then a hypothetical president AOC spends her 4 to 8 years putting it all back. I think we might eventually start to feel that no?
On January 18 2021 04:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I think they won't even notice most of it. Just like when trump undid stuff.
lets take environmental regs
Trump and republicans spent 4 years destroying any type of oversight and environmental protections. Hell a lot of republicans still thing climate change is some fairy tail myth.
So now biden comes along and spends his 4 to 8 years putting all that back in place. Then say a hypothetical president Pence spends his 4-8 years braking it all back down. Then a hypothetical president AOC spends her 4 to 8 years putting it all back. I think we might eventually start to feel that no?
This isn’t new. Look up Carter’s solar panels. When they were installed on the White House roof he gave a speech saying that they could either be a milestone marking the start of an era of clean energy and the development of new scientific breakthroughs or a sad reminder of the road not taken. Reagan had them taken off after inauguration purely out of spite.
On January 18 2021 04:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I think they won't even notice most of it. Just like when trump undid stuff.
lets take environmental regs
Trump and republicans spent 4 years destroying any type of oversight and environmental protections. Hell a lot of republicans still thing climate change is some fairy tail myth.
So now biden comes along and spends his 4 to 8 years putting all that back in place. Then say a hypothetical president Pence spends his 4-8 years braking it all back down. Then a hypothetical president AOC spends her 4 to 8 years putting it all back. I think we might eventually start to feel that no?
In the span of 24 years? Sure. There will definitely be environmental changes. I'm saying that people won't know what was taken away and what was put back unless people tell them. And even then, like you said, half the country won't believe the numbers. I'm just hoping that whatever EO is put in, it somehow gets put into law at some point.
On January 18 2021 04:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I think they won't even notice most of it. Just like when trump undid stuff.
lets take environmental regs
Trump and republicans spent 4 years destroying any type of oversight and environmental protections. Hell a lot of republicans still thing climate change is some fairy tail myth.
So now biden comes along and spends his 4 to 8 years putting all that back in place. Then say a hypothetical president Pence spends his 4-8 years braking it all back down. Then a hypothetical president AOC spends her 4 to 8 years putting it all back. I think we might eventually start to feel that no?
This isn’t new. Look up Carter’s solar panels. When they were installed on the White House roof he gave a speech saying that they could either be a milestone marking the start of an era of clean energy and the development of new scientific breakthroughs or a sad reminder of the road not taken. Reagan had them taken off after inauguration purely out of spite.
Block the road off, tear it up, paint over it, and tell people it never existed and wouldn't be possible. That way people who would criticize the path we're taking don't know better.
On January 18 2021 04:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I think they won't even notice most of it. Just like when trump undid stuff.
lets take environmental regs
Trump and republicans spent 4 years destroying any type of oversight and environmental protections. Hell a lot of republicans still thing climate change is some fairy tail myth.
So now biden comes along and spends his 4 to 8 years putting all that back in place. Then say a hypothetical president Pence spends his 4-8 years braking it all back down. Then a hypothetical president AOC spends her 4 to 8 years putting it all back. I think we might eventually start to feel that no?
This isn’t new. Look up Carter’s solar panels. When they were installed on the White House roof he gave a speech saying that they could either be a milestone marking the start of an era of clean energy and the development of new scientific breakthroughs or a sad reminder of the road not taken. Reagan had them taken off after inauguration purely out of spite.
The panels were removed in 1986, over a year into his second term after a roof renovation. Hardly "out of spite."
On January 18 2021 04:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I think they won't even notice most of it. Just like when trump undid stuff.
lets take environmental regs
Trump and republicans spent 4 years destroying any type of oversight and environmental protections. Hell a lot of republicans still thing climate change is some fairy tail myth.
So now biden comes along and spends his 4 to 8 years putting all that back in place. Then say a hypothetical president Pence spends his 4-8 years braking it all back down. Then a hypothetical president AOC spends her 4 to 8 years putting it all back. I think we might eventually start to feel that no?
This isn’t new. Look up Carter’s solar panels. When they were installed on the White House roof he gave a speech saying that they could either be a milestone marking the start of an era of clean energy and the development of new scientific breakthroughs or a sad reminder of the road not taken. Reagan had them taken off after inauguration purely out of spite.
The panels were removed in 1986, over a year into his second term after a roof renovation. Hardly "out of spite."
My bad. I repeated without fact checking. Thank you for fact checking me.
The overall issue remains though. The United States was technologically and industrially best positioned to become the leader in clean energy tech for the world and by placing them on the roof of the White House Carter was symbolically marking the goal of the US to become a global leader in the field. 30 years later and China, not the US, dominates the industry due to state industrial planning and investment while the US spends trillions securing fossil fuels. The failure of US policy is apparent either way. Whether or not Reagan was spiteful, successive US administrations have squandered the US lead and failed to invest and innovate.
Its a shame too, imagining what America could look like if we haven't abdicated any real leadership when it comes to causes that look like the future. Imagine an America that embraced Green Energy...
We'd probably be a lot farther away from this neo-fascist precipice.
On January 17 2021 07:37 m4ini wrote: So, how high we thinking are the chances of deaths at the inauguration, considering they just stopped someone with a loaded gun with high cap mag/drum (not specified what exactly), 500 rounds of ammunition and a fake inauguration ID, in a police checkpoint (not confirmed right wing yet, might be antifa /s)?
Zero. Unless you believe 22,000 National guard troops, razor wire fencing and road closures isn't enough? What more would it take.
I actually do believe so, yes. I'm not of the opinion that "people wouldn't do that" - i've come to expect nothing that requires a brain from right wing nutjobs.
Guards won't stop bullets. They might in fact become a target, much like the guards at the capitol.
Believe what you want.These national guard troops are armed.Theres 25,000.Roads around there are all blocked with checkpoints.
Good luck getting a sniper rifle in and a position where you get a good shot in.
Who's needing a sniper rifle?
Do you think the guy brought a handgun with 50 round drums to spray down the president? I asked if we assume that there will be "death", not if the president is gonna be assassinated.
The cop at the capitol wasn't killed because he was "someone", he was killed because he tried to stop the fucking insane people trying to storm the capitol.
The insane stupid woman tried crawling over a barricade while looking into the bore of a hand gun less than two meters away, if you're trying to argue that people are "sensible" enough to not do stupid shit while guards are around, you're way late on that idiocy. They've factually proven that they're indeed stupid enough to do stupid shit while looking into a .45 barrel.
It'd be great if while we're increasing the minimum wage we set it to manually account for inflation every year. Probably have to go back and put that bit back in there every once in a while when Republicans take it out, but it'd be nice to help keep people aware of the importance of minimum wage and aware of inflations impact on things.
The New Yorker has a video from one of their reporters who walked in all the way through the capitol with the MAGA rioters. It's a good look at how fanatical these people are.
'You' re outnumbered, there's a million of us out there and we listen to Trump, your boss' capitol police inside the building seems very unprepared and basically step aside. The rioters keep saying ' we love you officers' while their group in other places is beating up officers. They scour the hallways banging on every door to see if it's unlocked trying to find people (to fuck up?).
They enter the senate, shouting ' where the fuck are they' They rummage through papers on the senate floor, searching for 'things to nail these fuckers', saying 'Ted Cruz would've wanted this, I think were good' They do crazy prayers from the vice-presidents chair because what they are doing is the lords work of course...
The ending is most crazy where they collectively destroy journalists equipment and then one of the MAGAs says 'take down all their names, and we start hunting them down, one by one', receiving cheers from the croud.
It really seems like if they would've found the politicians before the evacuation that the day could've turned very very grim and there was only a narrow escape from something way worse.
On January 17 2021 07:37 m4ini wrote: So, how high we thinking are the chances of deaths at the inauguration, considering they just stopped someone with a loaded gun with high cap mag/drum (not specified what exactly), 500 rounds of ammunition and a fake inauguration ID, in a police checkpoint (not confirmed right wing yet, might be antifa /s)?
Zero. Unless you believe 22,000 National guard troops, razor wire fencing and road closures isn't enough? What more would it take.
I actually do believe so, yes. I'm not of the opinion that "people wouldn't do that" - i've come to expect nothing that requires a brain from right wing nutjobs.
Guards won't stop bullets. They might in fact become a target, much like the guards at the capitol.
Believe what you want.These national guard troops are armed.Theres 25,000.Roads around there are all blocked with checkpoints.
Good luck getting a sniper rifle in and a position where you get a good shot in.
Who's needing a sniper rifle?
Do you think the guy brought a handgun with 50 round drums to spray down the president? I asked if we assume that there will be "death", not if the president is gonna be assassinated.
The cop at the capitol wasn't killed because he was "someone", he was killed because he tried to stop the fucking insane people trying to storm the capitol.
The insane stupid woman tried crawling over a barricade while looking into the bore of a hand gun less than two meters away, if you're trying to argue that people are "sensible" enough to not do stupid shit while guards are around, you're way late on that idiocy. They've factually proven that they're indeed stupid enough to do stupid shit while looking into a .45 barrel.
The people were trying to storm the capitol because Trump asked them to be there on the 6th.He's now asking them to stay away on Inauguration day.There won't be a riot in DC on inauguration day.
And honestly if Biden thinks it's still dangerous when theres 25k troops there then have the inauguration on a plane like LBJ did.There's no need to fearmonger a nothingburger.Everything possible has been done to make the capital as safe & secure as possible.
On January 18 2021 04:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I think they won't even notice most of it. Just like when trump undid stuff.
lets take environmental regs
Trump and republicans spent 4 years destroying any type of oversight and environmental protections. Hell a lot of republicans still thing climate change is some fairy tail myth.
So now biden comes along and spends his 4 to 8 years putting all that back in place. Then say a hypothetical president Pence spends his 4-8 years braking it all back down. Then a hypothetical president AOC spends her 4 to 8 years putting it all back. I think we might eventually start to feel that no?
This isn’t new. Look up Carter’s solar panels. When they were installed on the White House roof he gave a speech saying that they could either be a milestone marking the start of an era of clean energy and the development of new scientific breakthroughs or a sad reminder of the road not taken. Reagan had them taken off after inauguration purely out of spite.
The panels were removed in 1986, over a year into his second term after a roof renovation. Hardly "out of spite."
My bad. I repeated without fact checking. Thank you for fact checking me.
The overall issue remains though. The United States was technologically and industrially best positioned to become the leader in clean energy tech for the world and by placing them on the roof of the White House Carter was symbolically marking the goal of the US to become a global leader in the field. 30 years later and China, not the US, dominates the industry due to state industrial planning and investment while the US spends trillions securing fossil fuels. The failure of US policy is apparent either way. Whether or not Reagan was spiteful, successive US administrations have squandered the US lead and failed to invest and innovate.
I doubt it would've changed much. Germany subsidised their clean energy sector a lot but it didn't matter due to China's comparative advantage with their low labour costs. Production would've always been outsourced. Subsidising without a comparative advantage is a waste of money.
On January 18 2021 04:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I think they won't even notice most of it. Just like when trump undid stuff.
lets take environmental regs
Trump and republicans spent 4 years destroying any type of oversight and environmental protections. Hell a lot of republicans still thing climate change is some fairy tail myth.
So now biden comes along and spends his 4 to 8 years putting all that back in place. Then say a hypothetical president Pence spends his 4-8 years braking it all back down. Then a hypothetical president AOC spends her 4 to 8 years putting it all back. I think we might eventually start to feel that no?
This isn’t new. Look up Carter’s solar panels. When they were installed on the White House roof he gave a speech saying that they could either be a milestone marking the start of an era of clean energy and the development of new scientific breakthroughs or a sad reminder of the road not taken. Reagan had them taken off after inauguration purely out of spite.
The panels were removed in 1986, over a year into his second term after a roof renovation. Hardly "out of spite."
My bad. I repeated without fact checking. Thank you for fact checking me.
The overall issue remains though. The United States was technologically and industrially best positioned to become the leader in clean energy tech for the world and by placing them on the roof of the White House Carter was symbolically marking the goal of the US to become a global leader in the field. 30 years later and China, not the US, dominates the industry due to state industrial planning and investment while the US spends trillions securing fossil fuels. The failure of US policy is apparent either way. Whether or not Reagan was spiteful, successive US administrations have squandered the US lead and failed to invest and innovate.
I doubt it would've changed much. Germany subsidised their clean energy sector a lot but it didn't matter due to China's comparative advantage with their low labour costs. Production would've always been outsourced. Subsidising without a comparative advantage is a waste of money.
This doesn’t properly understand the issue. Low labour costs aren’t worth much without the associated industries and human capital. Supply chains form an interconnected ecosystem with dependencies built in. A simple example is that heavy industry can only get their goods to the market with access to a modern port and a modern port can only justify the cost of existing if it gets a lot of use from heavy industry. If you lose one part of the ecosystem then the others start to fail in a knock on cascade. We’re now at the point that most of the industries that have gone to China can’t actually be returned because the ecosystem has broken down. There aren’t skilled labourers to work those industries anymore, nor trade schools producing graduates to go into them. There aren’t companies importing the necessary raw materials etc. But it didn’t have to be this way and it certainly wasn’t inevitable.
China did not have much of a competitive advantage for a long time, US raw materials had higher labour costs but could take advantage of the best modern machinery which was also US made back then. It could go straight to the factories, also in the US, on the railways that existed for that purpose. And then the goods could be exported across the world in ports that existed for that purpose. The US economic ecosystem was the most developed and efficient, China could only compete with small parts of it but it is the whole that makes it efficient. Cheaper labour doesn’t count for much if it’s not where it’s needed.
The loss of industry to China is a policy failure. Germany, as part of the EU with its high external tariffs, has actually done a better job than most at retaining domestic industry with associated competitive advantages.
On January 18 2021 10:46 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: The New Yorker has a video from one of their reporters who walked in all the way through the capitol with the MAGA rioters. It's a good look at how fanatical these people are.
'You' re outnumbered, there's a million of us out there and we listen to Trump, your boss' capitol police inside the building seems very unprepared and basically step aside. The rioters keep saying ' we love you officers' while their group in other places is beating up officers. They scour the hallways banging on every door to see if it's unlocked trying to find people (to fuck up?).
They enter the senate, shouting ' where the fuck are they' They rummage through papers on the senate floor, searching for 'things to nail these fuckers', saying 'Ted Cruz would've wanted this, I think were good' They do crazy prayers from the vice-presidents chair because what they are doing is the lords work of course...
The ending is most crazy where they collectively destroy journalists equipment and then one of the MAGAs says 'take down all their names, and we start hunting them down, one by one', receiving cheers from the croud.
It really seems like if they would've found the politicians before the evacuation that the day could've turned very very grim and there was only a narrow escape from something way worse.
I saw live that clown from Ohio at the House pretending that the impeachment was ridiculous and that there was no substantial difference between the riots of the summer and that little putsch of theirs. Filled me with rage.
On January 18 2021 04:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I think they won't even notice most of it. Just like when trump undid stuff.
lets take environmental regs
Trump and republicans spent 4 years destroying any type of oversight and environmental protections. Hell a lot of republicans still thing climate change is some fairy tail myth.
So now biden comes along and spends his 4 to 8 years putting all that back in place. Then say a hypothetical president Pence spends his 4-8 years braking it all back down. Then a hypothetical president AOC spends her 4 to 8 years putting it all back. I think we might eventually start to feel that no?
This isn’t new. Look up Carter’s solar panels. When they were installed on the White House roof he gave a speech saying that they could either be a milestone marking the start of an era of clean energy and the development of new scientific breakthroughs or a sad reminder of the road not taken. Reagan had them taken off after inauguration purely out of spite.
The panels were removed in 1986, over a year into his second term after a roof renovation. Hardly "out of spite."
My bad. I repeated without fact checking. Thank you for fact checking me.
The overall issue remains though. The United States was technologically and industrially best positioned to become the leader in clean energy tech for the world and by placing them on the roof of the White House Carter was symbolically marking the goal of the US to become a global leader in the field. 30 years later and China, not the US, dominates the industry due to state industrial planning and investment while the US spends trillions securing fossil fuels. The failure of US policy is apparent either way. Whether or not Reagan was spiteful, successive US administrations have squandered the US lead and failed to invest and innovate.
I doubt it would've changed much. Germany subsidised their clean energy sector a lot but it didn't matter due to China's comparative advantage with their low labour costs. Production would've always been outsourced. Subsidising without a comparative advantage is a waste of money.
This doesn’t properly understand the issue. Low labour costs aren’t worth much without the associated industries and human capital. Supply chains form an interconnected ecosystem with dependencies built in. A simple example is that heavy industry can only get their goods to the market with access to a modern port and a modern port can only justify the cost of existing if it gets a lot of use from heavy industry. If you lose one part of the ecosystem then the others start to fail in a knock on cascade. We’re now at the point that most of the industries that have gone to China can’t actually be returned because the ecosystem has broken down. There aren’t skilled labourers to work those industries anymore, nor trade schools producing graduates to go into them. There aren’t companies importing the necessary raw materials etc. But it didn’t have to be this way and it certainly wasn’t inevitable.
China did not have much of a competitive advantage for a long time, US raw materials had higher labour costs but could take advantage of the best modern machinery which was also US made back then. It could go straight to the factories, also in the US, on the railways that existed for that purpose. And then the goods could be exported across the world in ports that existed for that purpose. The US economic ecosystem was the most developed and efficient, China could only compete with small parts of it but it is the whole that makes it efficient. Cheaper labour doesn’t count for much if it’s not where it’s needed.
The loss of industry to China is a policy failure. Germany, as part of the EU with its high external tariffs, has actually done a better job than most at retaining domestic industry with associated competitive advantages.
But do you have a policy solution? As China worked diligently to get their supply chains, infrastructure and skilled workers in place, they always had the cheaper labour cost on top of it. You could either compete on labour cost, which is not viable with western cost of living, or brute-force China out of the market with tolls, which is not the way to make the world move forward, and would only delay the inevitable.
It would be interested to learn more about how Asia has slowly taken over the mobile phone market. I am starting to believe we westerners are not as good as we think we are in most areas.
On January 18 2021 04:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I think they won't even notice most of it. Just like when trump undid stuff.
lets take environmental regs
Trump and republicans spent 4 years destroying any type of oversight and environmental protections. Hell a lot of republicans still thing climate change is some fairy tail myth.
So now biden comes along and spends his 4 to 8 years putting all that back in place. Then say a hypothetical president Pence spends his 4-8 years braking it all back down. Then a hypothetical president AOC spends her 4 to 8 years putting it all back. I think we might eventually start to feel that no?
This isn’t new. Look up Carter’s solar panels. When they were installed on the White House roof he gave a speech saying that they could either be a milestone marking the start of an era of clean energy and the development of new scientific breakthroughs or a sad reminder of the road not taken. Reagan had them taken off after inauguration purely out of spite.
The panels were removed in 1986, over a year into his second term after a roof renovation. Hardly "out of spite."
My bad. I repeated without fact checking. Thank you for fact checking me.
The overall issue remains though. The United States was technologically and industrially best positioned to become the leader in clean energy tech for the world and by placing them on the roof of the White House Carter was symbolically marking the goal of the US to become a global leader in the field. 30 years later and China, not the US, dominates the industry due to state industrial planning and investment while the US spends trillions securing fossil fuels. The failure of US policy is apparent either way. Whether or not Reagan was spiteful, successive US administrations have squandered the US lead and failed to invest and innovate.
I doubt it would've changed much. Germany subsidised their clean energy sector a lot but it didn't matter due to China's comparative advantage with their low labour costs. Production would've always been outsourced. Subsidising without a comparative advantage is a waste of money.
This doesn’t properly understand the issue. Low labour costs aren’t worth much without the associated industries and human capital. Supply chains form an interconnected ecosystem with dependencies built in. A simple example is that heavy industry can only get their goods to the market with access to a modern port and a modern port can only justify the cost of existing if it gets a lot of use from heavy industry. If you lose one part of the ecosystem then the others start to fail in a knock on cascade. We’re now at the point that most of the industries that have gone to China can’t actually be returned because the ecosystem has broken down. There aren’t skilled labourers to work those industries anymore, nor trade schools producing graduates to go into them. There aren’t companies importing the necessary raw materials etc. But it didn’t have to be this way and it certainly wasn’t inevitable.
China did not have much of a competitive advantage for a long time, US raw materials had higher labour costs but could take advantage of the best modern machinery which was also US made back then. It could go straight to the factories, also in the US, on the railways that existed for that purpose. And then the goods could be exported across the world in ports that existed for that purpose. The US economic ecosystem was the most developed and efficient, China could only compete with small parts of it but it is the whole that makes it efficient. Cheaper labour doesn’t count for much if it’s not where it’s needed.
The loss of industry to China is a policy failure. Germany, as part of the EU with its high external tariffs, has actually done a better job than most at retaining domestic industry with associated competitive advantages.
But do you have a policy solution? As China worked diligently to get their supply chains, infrastructure and skilled workers in place, they always had the cheaper labour cost on top of it. You could either compete on labour cost, which is not viable with western cost of living, or brute-force China out of the market with tolls, which is not the way to make the world move forward, and would only delay the inevitable.
It would be interested to learn more about how Asia has slowly taken over the mobile phone market. I am starting to believe we westerners are not as good as we think we are in most areas.
It would be possible to create global standards for work weeks, labor benefits and minimum wages and so on.
On January 18 2021 04:21 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I think they won't even notice most of it. Just like when trump undid stuff.
lets take environmental regs
Trump and republicans spent 4 years destroying any type of oversight and environmental protections. Hell a lot of republicans still thing climate change is some fairy tail myth.
So now biden comes along and spends his 4 to 8 years putting all that back in place. Then say a hypothetical president Pence spends his 4-8 years braking it all back down. Then a hypothetical president AOC spends her 4 to 8 years putting it all back. I think we might eventually start to feel that no?
This isn’t new. Look up Carter’s solar panels. When they were installed on the White House roof he gave a speech saying that they could either be a milestone marking the start of an era of clean energy and the development of new scientific breakthroughs or a sad reminder of the road not taken. Reagan had them taken off after inauguration purely out of spite.
The panels were removed in 1986, over a year into his second term after a roof renovation. Hardly "out of spite."
My bad. I repeated without fact checking. Thank you for fact checking me.
The overall issue remains though. The United States was technologically and industrially best positioned to become the leader in clean energy tech for the world and by placing them on the roof of the White House Carter was symbolically marking the goal of the US to become a global leader in the field. 30 years later and China, not the US, dominates the industry due to state industrial planning and investment while the US spends trillions securing fossil fuels. The failure of US policy is apparent either way. Whether or not Reagan was spiteful, successive US administrations have squandered the US lead and failed to invest and innovate.
I doubt it would've changed much. Germany subsidised their clean energy sector a lot but it didn't matter due to China's comparative advantage with their low labour costs. Production would've always been outsourced. Subsidising without a comparative advantage is a waste of money.
This doesn’t properly understand the issue. Low labour costs aren’t worth much without the associated industries and human capital. Supply chains form an interconnected ecosystem with dependencies built in. A simple example is that heavy industry can only get their goods to the market with access to a modern port and a modern port can only justify the cost of existing if it gets a lot of use from heavy industry. If you lose one part of the ecosystem then the others start to fail in a knock on cascade. We’re now at the point that most of the industries that have gone to China can’t actually be returned because the ecosystem has broken down. There aren’t skilled labourers to work those industries anymore, nor trade schools producing graduates to go into them. There aren’t companies importing the necessary raw materials etc. But it didn’t have to be this way and it certainly wasn’t inevitable.
China did not have much of a competitive advantage for a long time, US raw materials had higher labour costs but could take advantage of the best modern machinery which was also US made back then. It could go straight to the factories, also in the US, on the railways that existed for that purpose. And then the goods could be exported across the world in ports that existed for that purpose. The US economic ecosystem was the most developed and efficient, China could only compete with small parts of it but it is the whole that makes it efficient. Cheaper labour doesn’t count for much if it’s not where it’s needed.
The loss of industry to China is a policy failure. Germany, as part of the EU with its high external tariffs, has actually done a better job than most at retaining domestic industry with associated competitive advantages.
But do you have a policy solution? As China worked diligently to get their supply chains, infrastructure and skilled workers in place, they always had the cheaper labour cost on top of it. You could either compete on labour cost, which is not viable with western cost of living, or brute-force China out of the market with tolls, which is not the way to make the world move forward, and would only delay the inevitable.
It would be interested to learn more about how Asia has slowly taken over the mobile phone market.I am starting to believe we westerners are not as good as we think we are in most areas.
ive thought and wanted to say this for a long time but never said it outright because i didnt wanna deal with someone raging that its racism/prejudice/generalising/stereotypes or whatever. whilst that may be true it doesnt mean theres no truth rooted in such a claim though. im also asian myself so someone could also call bias. however since the point has been made, might as well nod in agreement with this. the fundamental values and traditions of asian cultures orient them towards results/performance better than western cultures. increased importance placed on authority, discipline, collectivism etc. imo dominance in all sectors especially from china, but east asia overall also, is only a matter of time and in chinas case the only thing really holding them back is the communist regime itself. if china was to hypothetically become a "free" country ala usa then i dont see how any western country could try to keep them down without resorting to force
EPT
