Subsidies instead of loans.
Yes he said exactly what I thought he said.
Self sufficiency is unrealistic and self defeating.
I would absolutely and resolutely oppose any and all policies that would be necessary to force self sufficiency.
And it would require pretty draconian policies to achieve the desired level of self sufficiency.
3 Likes
Well…I don’t know if massive intervention in the market, but I do predict that massive governmental intervention will be required. The wage shortfall between second world nations and ours will require governmental assistance to address shortfalls in things like medical care and child care.
This actually seems like a great place for minimum income intervention. Alas, our friends on the right will never agree to that.
1 Like
Then why would you want us to farm out our critical resources to the extent that an opposition country could cut us off and leave us defenseless? That doesn’t sound like a good plan to me.
2 Likes
Okay. When Safiel speaks, attention must be paid.
Suppose instead of full self sufficiency, we agreed to farm some production out to countries such as Canada, Mexico, and the EU?
Whatever it takes. If we are going to stand up critical industries, we must be flexible.
But I take your point. The “gold rush” after the fall of the Soviet Union must be instructive.
Actually, and I am being deadly serious.
Given the ■■■■■■■ crap our domestic shipyards have foisted on us in recent years. I suggest we farm out construction of the new class of frigates to Great Britain, Italy, Spain, etc.
Give our domestic shipyards some actual competition and maybe they will stop turning out total crap.
1 Like
To clarify, yes, I meant massive government intervention. But I’m not so sure anymore, re: conservatives and “free markets.” Lots of threads here (including this one and any oil threads) make me wonder: Did they ever think any of this through in the first place?
Unfortunately, populist ideals have supplanted conservative ideals in some crowds. A true conservative would not be promoting the massive government interference necessary to achieve self sufficiency.
1 Like
And so am I. In my opinion, you are the wisest fellow around here.
Having said that, you are focused on defense expenditures (which is your wont). That must be considered, but I submit that we should first look to the production of domestic widgets, weejaws, and other assorted ephemera. These items drive our spending, and therefore our economy
I do think that’s shifted in the GOP.
The means to accomplish self sufficiency will require the abatement of conservative principles.
If the government promotes self sufficiency,they will need to backstop the inevitable holes left on the social side.
If you can’t provide a decent standard of living, you simply can’t attract workers to these newly created industries.
How else would it happen? Do you think corporate America would do it willingly, for the good of the country?
There is no way that you can drive domestic production of any product, no matter have vital or necessary, without gross interference in the free market.
However.
As wealth and standards of living increase overseas, the marginal utility of overseas production will gradually decrease. It will take a long time to be sure, but there is no way to do otherwise that I consider to be economically permissible.
It is not economically expedient to do so at all. Attempting to do so would damage the country far more than any supposed benefit of self sufficiency.
Well, where it says “…make all our own…” may be impossible. Having alternate sources or the possibility to ramp up those resources in a crisis may be a different thing.
In fact I suspect (hope?) we already have plans in the work for things like that.
It could work, if we quasi nationalized some of the essential industries,(see Norway - Equinor) and reeled in the greed of corporate America.
I fully understand an actual conservative like yourself would never accept that premise.
In the short to near medium term, without a doubt. And this is why government intervention via social spending will be essential. There is no way we can entice Americans into this new project of self sufficiency it it does not also allow some sort of minimal standard of living.
The free market magic will spark in the medium term. Eventually, across the market, prices will drop, and new markets found overseas.
Sure, but that is a long term prospect. I submit to you that we could shorten the interval by lowering our own expectations, rather than waiting for external standards to rise.
And make no mistake: I am under no delusions about how difficult this will be.
Are you sure? I submit we could focus on essentials if we backstop the costs required for employees. Is that considered interference in the market?
