Economics Thread

acesfull86 said:
mer·can·til·ism
/ˈmərkən(t)əˌliz(ə)m/
noun
HISTORICAL
the economic theory that trade generates wealth and is stimulated by the accumulation of profitable balances, which a government should encourage by means of protectionism.


What part of that doesn’t describe MAGAnomics?
Click to expand...

The CCP slave labor camps have pushed the need for this approach. Under naturally occurring economic conditions we wouldn't need to push for this. Its a result of the actions of the 'Libertarian' viewpoints of economic systems that this is essential to bring America back.
 
thethe said:
A system that relies solely on minimization of government leads itself to monopolies which are arguably even worse outcomes for Americans. Especially when there is nothing to stop the power brokers from moving means of productions to slave labor countries to increase the bottom line.
Click to expand...

A great way to get concentrated power in a market is to lobby government to kneecap your competition. Especially when said government is highly receptive to the argument that almost any good/product/service is vital to national security.

What mechanism will MAGA have in place to eliminate collision between wealth & power, since that’s apparently the standard?
 
thethe said:
The CCP slave labor camps have pushed the need for this approach. Under naturally occurring economic conditions we wouldn't need to push for this. It’s a result of the actions of the 'Libertarian' viewpoints of economic systems that this is essential to bring America back.
Click to expand...

Then why’d you call the claim of MAGAnomics being mercantilism “nonsense?”
 
acesfull86 said:
A great way to get concentrated power in a market is to lobby government to kneecap your competition. Especially when said government is highly receptive to the argument that almost any good/product/service is vital to national security.

What mechanism will MAGA have in place to eliminate collision between wealth & power, since that’s apparently the standard?
Click to expand...

Tax code changes to incentivize onshore production is a key pillar of this approach that is indexed against size on both ends. You incentivize smaller players to onshore their operations with tax incentives while the big players do not get the same inentives while you penalize ANY offshoring to bring the comparability of prices closer since those prices from international production are artficially reduced based on slave labor.

It's really not that complicated. Now over time you'll have to evaulate the performance of these policies and tweak as needed but this is the foundational building blocks of a better functioning economy for the coutnries PEOPLE.
 
acesfull86 said:
Then why’d you call the claim of MAGAnomics being mercantilism “nonsense?”
Click to expand...

Because the call for this is a reaction to the extreme offshoring that was facilitated by the worlds elite in cahoots with the CCP. In a more perfect world strcuture this would not be the request as domestic production would naturally have remained in some semblance.

So yes, I see this as very different from the implied pejorative of 'Mercantilism'.
 
what's cool is Bidenomics is a somewhat rational form of mercantilism...with incentives targeted toward investment in areas that have lost manufacturing jobs
 
nsacpi said:
what's cool is Bidenomics is a somewhat rational form of mercantilism...with incentives targeted toward investment in areas that have lost manufacturing jobs
Click to expand...

Anything in action? Biden said a bunch of things during the run up to the 2020 election to hold steady in that belt since trumps policies were so popular.
 
thethe said:
Tax code changes to incentivize onshore production is a key pillar of this approach.
Click to expand...

Lobbyist A: “We’d like this government subsidy so we can compete”

Lobbyist B: “We’d like this different subsidy but also we don’t want Lobbyist A to get their subsidy because that hurts our ability to compete”

Politician to both Lobbyist A and B: “I’ll support your initiative if you support my campaign and hire my friends as consultant”

I’m so glad we are expanding the powers of the politician so he squeeze more out of lobbyists!!
 
chop2chip said:
Lobbyist A: “We’d like this government subsidy so we can compete”

Lobbyist B: “We’d like this different subsidy but also we don’t want Lobbyist A to get their subsidy because that hurts our ability to compete”

Politician to both Lobbyist A and B: “I’ll support your initiative if you support my campaign and hire my friends as consultant”

I’m so glad we are expanding the powers of the politician so he squeeze more out of lobbyists!!
Click to expand...

Only these types of activities results in more COGS being onshored which increase the quality of lives for more than just the laptop class.

I suppose we should assume that the 'free market' will just correct itself to where its best for the citizenry of a country. Oh wait - That never happens.

If you want to just have a one world country then just come out and say it.
 
Fetterman on a roll baby - Need more courageous Democrats to realize how crazy the left is and how all that matters is the livlihood of AMERICANS.
 
thethe said:
Only these types of activities results in more COGS being onshored which increase the quality of lives for more than just the laptop class.

I suppose we should assume that the 'free market' will just correct itself to where its best for the citizenry of a country. Oh wait - That never happens.

If you want to just have a one world country then just come out and say it.
Click to expand...

No one person or group of people can decide what’s “best for the citizenry” of an economy. We’re hundreds of millions of people making trillions of individual decisions based on our own needs/wants/ambitions. This is where I depart from the arrogance of central planners in all their forms.
 
acesfull86 said:
No one person or group of people can decide what’s “best for the citizenry” of an economy. We’re hundreds of millions of people making trillions of individual decisions based on our own needs/wants/ambitions. This is where I depart from the arrogance of central planners in all their forms.
Click to expand...

All I know is the results of the current system and how it was a naturally end result of a more libertarian style econcomic agenda.

What the Libertarians don't ever seem to understand is the nature of humans and how that must be accounted for.

IN a perfect world simulation your econcomic principles are EASILY the best option and I have always said that.
 
thethe said:
What the Libertarians don't ever seem to understand is the nature of humans and how that must be accounted for.
Click to expand...

Libertarians understand that better than anyone, which is why they advocate for diffusing power as wide as possible.

I can’t follow the logic of “humans are immoral, bad decision makers” therefore let’s concentrate power with a small group of those very same immoral humans.
 
It is a subtle thang. Markets are not perfect. Government is not perfect. At the end of the day what we are reduced to is weighing the relative demerits of market failure and government failure. It doesn't do any good to idealize one or the other. At the same time we shouldn't give up on the possibility of using both and improving both to get good outcomes.
 
nsacpi said:
maga outrage over a japanese company buying u.s. steel is amusing
Click to expand...

https://reason.com/2023/12/19/what-j-d-vance-could-learn-from-reading-hillbilly-elegy/

In Chapter 4 of Hillbilly Elegy, the Rust Belt memoir that launched his political career, Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) relates a story about the time that Kawasaki bought out Armco, the steel-making company that once employed Vance's "Papaw."

Kawasaki is, of course, based in Japan. At first, Papaw and the other residents of Middletown, Ohio—described by Vance as "a town full of World War II vets and their families—react to the news as if "General [Hideki] Tojo himself had decided to set up shop in southwest Ohio." Once the initial fervor dies down, however, Papaw and the rest of the Middletown community recognize that the foreign company's investment in their local community can be a good thing. "The Japanese are our friends now," Papaw tells Vance.

"The Kawasaki merger represented an inconvenient truth: Manufacturing in America was a tough business in the post-globalization world," Vance writes. "If companies like Armco were going to survive, they would have to retool. Kawasaki gave Armco a chance, and Middletown's flagship company probably would not have survived without it."

…

On Monday, another Japan-based company, Nippon Steel, announced that it would be purchasing another struggling American steelmaking company, U.S. Steel, in a deal reportedly worth $14.1 billion.

Upon hearing the news, Vance did not exactly follow his Papaw's example. "Today, a critical piece of America's defense industrial base was auctioned off to foreigners for cash," thundered Vance in an official statement. "Rest assured that I will interrogate the long-term implications for the American people, and I will do everything in my power to protect the future of our nation's security, industry, and workers."

…

It seems that Vance has forgotten that the Japanese are our friends now, not shady "foreigners" invading crucial American industries. Perhaps he's also unaware that Nippon Steel has operated in the United States for 40 years, and that the company already owns two smaller American-based steelmakers: Standard Steel and Wheeling Nippon Steel, according to Reuters.

Maybe he can pick up a copy of Hillbilly Elegy and learn that other lesson too. There's absolutely no reason to apply silly geopolitical thinking to this transaction, especially when both U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel are publicly traded companies. One has a headquarters in the United States and the other has a headquarters in Japan, yes, but the truth is that both companies are owned by their shareholders—and literally anyone in the world can buy shares in either.

…

Vance's reaction to the U.S. Steel announcement did serve one productive purpose, however. It is yet another illustration of how the populist right is merely recycling the flawed economic policy ideas of the far left.

 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-steel-nippon-japan-industrial-policy-tariffs-d325f107?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

We have to admit to a smile as Washington’s protectionists howl about Japanese steel manufacturer Nippon Steel’s $14.1 billion deal to buy U.S. Steel. They apparently miss the irony that their tariffs and industrial policy have resulted in the foreign takeover of an iconic U.S. manufacturer.

U.S. Steel put itself on the auction block this summer and sought to strike a deal while the irony is hot. Trillions of dollars in Washington spending on public works and green energy are goosing domestic demand for steel while tariffs protect U.S. manufacturers against foreign competition. U.S. Steel’s best assets are political creations.

President Trump in 2018 slapped 25% tariffs on foreign steel under the pretense of protecting national security. Domestic steel producers lobbied for the tariffs, which they said would protect American workers from cheap foreign imports. Yet U.S. Steel’s workforce had shrunk to 22,740 at the end of 2022 from 29,000 in 2018.

The evidence shows that the tariffs have resulted in fewer downstream manufacturing jobs and raised prices for consumers, all while padding the bottom line of domestic steel makers. Washington’s industrial policy is also helping to boost demand for domestic steel and U.S. manufacturers’ profits.
 
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/12/was-the-panic-over-income-inequality-all-based-on-a-mistake/

Thomas Piketty has driven most of the media coverage and public discussion over income inequality. His research looked at U.S. income-tax returns and reported massive increases in the share of income being earned by the top 1 percent amid near stagnation for the bottom half of earners. But it turns out that Piketty’s research, which made him something of a media star and was uncritically parroted by journalists and the political class, is rife with errors and deeply flawed in its methodology.

Piketty’s widely reported 2003 study, for example, found that since 1962 the income share earned by the top 1 percent more than doubled. But it reached this conclusion by looking at individual income-tax returns.

Notably, income-tax returns don’t account for “government transfers” (existing welfare and benefits programs) nor do they account for nontaxable job benefits such as health insurance and retirement plans. They also fail to capture a significant portion of national income that doesn’t show up on individual income-tax returns. As a result of these and other shortcomings, Auten and Splinter conclude that this approach provides a “distorted view of income inequality levels and trends.”

Their own comprehensive analysis, which corrects for all these issues and examines after-tax, after-transfers income levels — in other words the reality Americans actually experience — finds very different results. Rather than doubling, they find that the share of income earned by the top 1 percent increased only 0.2 percentage points since 1962.

That’s . . . not exactly the meteoric rise in income inequality that we’ve all heard so much about.

They also find that the supposed stagnation plaguing the bottom half of American earners no longer exists once you look at post-tax, post-welfare data. Auten and Splinter report: “Instead of real per capita incomes of the bottom half of the distribution appearing unchanged since 1979, we find that after taxes and transfers they increased by two-thirds.”


—————

Seems relevant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top