No. If we are committed to capitalism, the government must help industry be profitable by backstoping social needs.
This is extremely complicated.
I do think we need to produce more here and find ways to be competitive on the global market while doing so.
But like others have pointed out, it would require enormous government expenditures and intervention to make it happen. It would require a World War I level of start up capital.
I don’t have a problem with a basic social safety net, provided we understand that there is a limit beyond which inflation will wipe out any attempted help.
Now, I would abolish unhelpful things, such as the sugar subsidies and other domestic subsidies that favor unprofitable businesses, but impose heavy costs on consumers.
Oh yes. I would also include corn and oil subsidies.
Edit: these would be an example of the pain to the consumer I am talking about. Corn, or corn oil is in everything. And oil? Americans would definitely gripe about the real price of gas.
1 Like
Maybe we could start by not subsidizing other countries.
Sure. But China is super busy subsidizing other countries. And this influence (soft power) will be crucial in upcoming Cold War II when drawing sides. Also, the money spent is minimal (relatively speaking) at 38 billion.
I would be willing to entertain discussion of specific countries, but generally speaking, soft power (spending) is to our advantage.
Agreed, BUT let us not get derailed from the point and purpose of the thread.
In this pursuit, we can agree that some foreign spending might be curtailed in our quest for self sufficiency.
As an aside, I note (with some disappointment) that this thread isn’t gaining the traction of the social justice threads.
I would assert that this topic is much more important than don’t say gay.
1 Like
Apparently we’ve already forgotten when, as the covid outbreak was blossoming, the Chinese initially hoarded masks and equipment they manufactured.
Not sure how many wake-up calls it’s gonna take before this country wakes up. But, oh the priorities! It seems that being awake has been replaced with being woke.
4 Likes
Libs. Always the naysayers.
He’s not wrong. It would be a significant transition and the American poor would be most heavily impacted. It would take some time for the price of American made products to fall to a more affordable level as mass production dropped the price.
I think it’s worth doing, but there would be significant growing pains. Similar to the growing pains that occurred during the big movement to outsource in the 1970s and 1980s. But in reverse and arguably more difficult to manage.
I would say cut the Europeans and focus more on Southeast Asia and the sub-Saharan African nations not already in the Chinese court. The EU can take care of their own continent.
Same level of spending, but allocated better to suit our future conflict with the SCO.
No change in pain. Instead of paying taxes to fund worthless ■■■■ holers for doing nothing we would be paying higher prices… but a) becoming self sufficient; b) reducing the crime caused by people out work; c) building a better work force ; and d) decreasing the vote for Democrats, who depend on worthless ■■■■ holers for a large part of their base.
Okay.
Yeah? So what? I think self sufficiency would be worth it.
Also, we are scaffolding all of this on our work force working , so all of your objections are null.
The idea would be phenomenally expensive. Free markets are cool.
- Socialism for left-wing purposes, or
- Socialism for self-sufficiency purposes
produce the same economic result.
Socialism did not fail because it was socialism for the wrong cause. Socialism fails because socialism sucks. Adam Smith wrote his book in 1776. He was not objecting to food stamps and free childcare, he was objecting to “big government” that came about for very similar reasons as this thread recommends.
-
There are all sorts of natural resources (nickel, aluminum, cryolite, bauxite etc.) that exist in large quantities overseas and not here (or very little here.) It makes no sense to use more expensive alternatives. It makes no sense to bring them here in an unrefined state and then refine them here.
-
Some products (textiles etc.) are very very labor intensive. It makes no sense to artificially American to perform those jobs when a FREE MARKET would have us instead perform higher-end work.
Free markets are cool. They work and other systems fail for good reason.
Intervening for liberal reasons or intervening for isolationist/self-sufficiency reasons have the same result. Socialism sucks because socialism sucks not because it is “socialism for the wrong reason.”
I don’t disagree, but we must attract workers into this system that we are trying to create.
A really stupid idea. I am all for “buy American” but it should be by choice not mandatory.
It’s an anti capitalistic idea.
If x can sell me widgets at x. Why should someone be forced to buy from y who is selling widgets at x+1 due to nationality.
It’s against Americans ideals.
Allan
If we are talking about producing components for defenses against adversaries, the Penatagon could stop buying the $ 5,000 rolls of toilet paper and get the cheaper ones, and spend that $5,000 on US made microchips.
Manufacturing items here that previously were manufactured overseas would certainly cost a lot more for us. Either the consumer pays the extra amount or the government and the latter isn’t sustainable.
Plus what incentive is there for the company? Companies exist to deliver value to the shareholder. An expensive US made product assures that the market would only be a US captive market. In other words, the company would not be able to sell their product outside the US because they would not be cost competitive. Not many companies would find the notion of their market being limited to the US as attractive.
