I think broadly we want industry to be competitive and don't want workers maimed on the job or rivers catching on fire. That requires tariffs, as China and Mexico don't care about that, largely.
So yes, many regulations will have to go, and the income tax is abominable and should go as well. We'll see. But, regardless, I can't imagine an industrialized America that isn't either poisoned like China or protected by tariffs
Certainly; otherwise the raising of tariffs protects the regulatory state, i.e. the political class, including the burgeoning field of NGOs (who lobby the government for the enactment of various regulations).
> poisoned like China
That's a reasonable goal. But when CO2 is labeled a pollutant & *all* energy consuming industries are suppressed by government regulations leading to deindustrialization (see the case of Germany with their *Energiewende*), then the raising of tariffs to support domestic industry is just an arms race *within* the government.
I don't want to belabor the point, but tariffs do have domestic costs & if such costs are paid to counteract the suppressive effects of *unreasonable* government regulations (whether enacted under the rubric of labor or environmental protection), then that is a game which can't be won.
High tech manufacturing training will be critical for kids who are not university bound but skilled and want to work. I know many such students. Space development is a net positive for tech and control but our ports are in dire need of updating to compete with China’s transportation abilities.
To your point on infrastructure, an essential aspect would be reopening our domestic waterways by repealing (or significantly altering) the Jones Act. I think we underestimate just how much cheaper our goods would be if it were made economical to ship via water again. A single barge can carry the equivalent of several train loads of cargo.
As for the income tax, you may be surprised to know that it wasn't until the mid 1940's that the government received large shares of privately-generated wealth via the federal income tax, even though there was no requirement for private citizens to do so. They never corrected the error, and the problem has only grown.
As written, the tax code levies an income tax only on federal office-holders and their employees. If we got back to that, there'd be no problem with the tax. Read the following links for more information:
Re: the Jones Act, would that not just open what remains of the American shipping industry up to destruction at the hand of mainly chinese and south korean foreign vessels?
In its current form, the Jones Act hasn't accomplished its stated purpose. It was meant to allow American shipbuilders to continue and expand their operations. Yet today, the American merchant marine consists of only 91 ships, while it had 250 in the 80s. Our merchant marine is so small that the Jones Act must be suspended any time there's a coastal natural disaster, because we need foreign ships to deliver aid. And while rail, highway, and air infrastructure has grown in the last twenty years, port infrastructure (esp. brownwater ports) has declined.
The problem with the Jones Act is that it isn't a tariff. American shipping companies are required to under JA to buy American. They don't even have the option of buying foreign ships. So these shipbuilders have a captive market. Additionally, as manufacturing of secondary parts has been offshored, it's been more difficult for shipyards to get these parts, which necessitates redefining what constitutes "American made", leading to more government regulation, inefficient production, etc.
To be clear: our government ought to insist that American shippers employ American citizens and register their ships under the United States. But captive markets are counterproductive to a nation's industrial development. A simple tariff on foreign-made ships will be sufficient to protect American shipbuilders, and will avoid nearly all the logistical and regulatory headaches caused by the Jones Act.
An interesting article.
> the cost of labor protections, environmental regulations, and income taxes [...] chasing companies away via regulation
So the raising of tariffs supposed to counteract these handicaps placed on American industry? Who is being protected, then?
I think broadly we want industry to be competitive and don't want workers maimed on the job or rivers catching on fire. That requires tariffs, as China and Mexico don't care about that, largely.
So yes, many regulations will have to go, and the income tax is abominable and should go as well. We'll see. But, regardless, I can't imagine an industrialized America that isn't either poisoned like China or protected by tariffs
> many regulations will have to go
Certainly; otherwise the raising of tariffs protects the regulatory state, i.e. the political class, including the burgeoning field of NGOs (who lobby the government for the enactment of various regulations).
> poisoned like China
That's a reasonable goal. But when CO2 is labeled a pollutant & *all* energy consuming industries are suppressed by government regulations leading to deindustrialization (see the case of Germany with their *Energiewende*), then the raising of tariffs to support domestic industry is just an arms race *within* the government.
I don't want to belabor the point, but tariffs do have domestic costs & if such costs are paid to counteract the suppressive effects of *unreasonable* government regulations (whether enacted under the rubric of labor or environmental protection), then that is a game which can't be won.
CO2 is different than burning rivers, and not a concern of the Trump Administration
The "domestic costs" are, if executed properly, a short term pain that leads to a much more thriving domestic economy
High tech manufacturing training will be critical for kids who are not university bound but skilled and want to work. I know many such students. Space development is a net positive for tech and control but our ports are in dire need of updating to compete with China’s transportation abilities.
Yes on all counts. Quite true
Wheres part 3?
It was the podcast that followed
https://www.theamericantribune.news/p/trumps-sovereign-wealth-fund-and
To your point on infrastructure, an essential aspect would be reopening our domestic waterways by repealing (or significantly altering) the Jones Act. I think we underestimate just how much cheaper our goods would be if it were made economical to ship via water again. A single barge can carry the equivalent of several train loads of cargo.
As for the income tax, you may be surprised to know that it wasn't until the mid 1940's that the government received large shares of privately-generated wealth via the federal income tax, even though there was no requirement for private citizens to do so. They never corrected the error, and the problem has only grown.
As written, the tax code levies an income tax only on federal office-holders and their employees. If we got back to that, there'd be no problem with the tax. Read the following links for more information:
https://www.losthorizons.com/CtC/Foreword.htm
https://losthorizons.com/The16th.htm
Re: the Jones Act, would that not just open what remains of the American shipping industry up to destruction at the hand of mainly chinese and south korean foreign vessels?
In its current form, the Jones Act hasn't accomplished its stated purpose. It was meant to allow American shipbuilders to continue and expand their operations. Yet today, the American merchant marine consists of only 91 ships, while it had 250 in the 80s. Our merchant marine is so small that the Jones Act must be suspended any time there's a coastal natural disaster, because we need foreign ships to deliver aid. And while rail, highway, and air infrastructure has grown in the last twenty years, port infrastructure (esp. brownwater ports) has declined.
The problem with the Jones Act is that it isn't a tariff. American shipping companies are required to under JA to buy American. They don't even have the option of buying foreign ships. So these shipbuilders have a captive market. Additionally, as manufacturing of secondary parts has been offshored, it's been more difficult for shipyards to get these parts, which necessitates redefining what constitutes "American made", leading to more government regulation, inefficient production, etc.
To be clear: our government ought to insist that American shippers employ American citizens and register their ships under the United States. But captive markets are counterproductive to a nation's industrial development. A simple tariff on foreign-made ships will be sufficient to protect American shipbuilders, and will avoid nearly all the logistical and regulatory headaches caused by the Jones Act.
Ah, that helps with understanding it, thank you. This seems like a good point about captive vs. tariffed markets, I appreciate the input