Biden signs 'Buy American' order, pledges to renew U.S. manufacturing

[ZiprHead]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biden/biden-signs-buy-american-order-pledges-to-renew-u-s-manufacturing-idUSKBN29U0Z3?fbclid=IwAR27Xh7djdq6sjMEHeZMcbjFqFKy_eC1-A4IYQ3z4N8wDhuwZvstS1HclqU&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Joe Biden vowed on Monday to leverage the purchasing power of the U.S. government, the world’s biggest single buyer of goods and services, to strengthen domestic manufacturing and create markets for new technologies.

The Democratic president signed an executive order aimed at closing loopholes in existing “Buy American” provisions, which apply to about a third of the $600 billion in goods and services the federal government buys each year. The order will make any waivers more transparent and create a senior White House role to oversee the process.

“I don’t buy for one second that the vitality of American manufacturing is a thing of the past,” Biden told reporters before signing the order. “American manufacturing was the arsenal of democracy in World War Two and it must be part of the engine of American prosperity now.”

Biden reiterated plans announced on the campaign trail to replace the fleet of federal cars with U.S.-made electric vehicles.

Revitalizing the manufacturing sector, which accounts for about 12% of the U.S. economy, is a key part of Biden’s broader push to drive up wages, create more union jobs, support minority-owned businesses and strengthen U.S. supply chains, White House officials say.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Give 'em hell, Joe!

 

[RVonse]

I heard he just axed 11000 union jobs with the keystone pipeline. They would still be working if he would have done just nothing at all.

 

[ZiprHead]

I heard he just axed 11000 union jobs with the keystone pipeline. They would still be working if he would have done just nothing at all.

You heard bullshit propaganda.

We’ve seen several similar posts offer other figures for how many jobs were lost as a result of Biden’s executive order, ranging from 12,000 to 83,000. So we wanted to take a closer look.

TC Energy Corp., the Canadian company that owns the Keystone XL pipeline with the Alberta government, has said more than 1,000 people are out of work because of Biden’s executive order. The 11,000 and $2 billion figures cited in the Facebook post are estimates published by the company, but most of the jobs would be temporary.

In the report, the agency wrote that 10,400 estimated positions would be for seasonal construction work lasting four to eight-month periods. Since the State Department defines "job" as "one position that is filled for 1 year," that would equate to approximately 3,900 jobs over a two-year period.

In short: Most of the estimated jobs were temporary.

The State Department forecasted that no more than 50 jobs, some of which could be located in Canada, would be required to maintain the pipeline. Thirty-five of them would be permanent, while 15 would be temporary contractors.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/01/22/keystone-pipeline-jobs-lost-joe-biden-executive-order-cancel-fact-check/6673822002/

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How does "Buy American" (higher cost?) benefit consumers and taxpayers?

President Joe Biden vowed on Monday to leverage the purchasing power of the U.S. government, the world’s biggest single buyer of goods and services, to strengthen domestic manufacturing and . . .

Wait -- What does "leverage the purchasing power" mean? It means to increase spending by the government, above what it's already spending, in order not to buy anything extra, but just to shift the buying away from some foreign buying to domestic buying. So it means driving up the federal budget but not get anything in return for it. Or, buy the same stuff, but pay higher prices for it = higher taxes or higher cost = lower living standard.

When you pay a higher price for the same production, the buyer is made worse off, not better off.

. . . to strengthen domestic manufacturing and create . . .

You can "strengthen" any part of the economy by imposing higher cost onto other parts of the economy to pay for it, thus making all those other parts weaker.

What is the point of making parts of the economy weaker in order to make another part stronger? How is that a net gain? Especially when the part being weakened is already the more viable part, being forced to subsidize the part being propped up with the extra tax dollars?

. . . and create markets for new technologies.

Which "new technologies"? Why do these new technologies need markets created for them? Who is producing new technologies which don't already have a market for them? What is the need to create a market for a technology? Why is a technology being produced for which there is not already a market? Maybe those "new technologies" should not have been produced in the first place if there wasn't any market for them.

The Democratic president signed an executive order aimed at closing loopholes in existing “Buy American” provisions, which apply to about a third of the $600 billion in goods and services the federal government buys each year.

Thus increasing the cost higher than the $600 billion, but not increasing or improving the production = higher cost for no improvement in anything being bought, or higher cost than before. What is the benefit of having the government pay higher cost (= higher taxes) but get nothing in return for the taxpayers who have to pay for it?

Shouldn't the taxpayers get something in return, like improved production, or increased production, in return for the higher cost they must pay?

The order will make any waivers more transparent and create a senior White House role to oversee the process.

I.e., expose and eliminate some cost-savings which could be gained by shopping for something less expensive = increased higher costs for no benefit or improvement in the production, or higher costs to taxpayers who gain nothing in return for it.

“I don’t buy for one second that the vitality of American manufacturing is a thing of the past,” Biden told reporters . . .

If that's the case, then why does the American manufacturing need to be propped up artificially at the expense of the rest of the economy which has to pay for it and thus be weakened? If something has "vitality" already, why does it need to be artificially propped up at everyone else's expense?

“American manufacturing was the arsenal of democracy in World War Two and it must be part of the engine of American prosperity now.”

By inflicting artificial costs onto everyone else? How does it create prosperity to inflict higher costs onto everyone and not give them anything in return for it? How does making the production more costly increase our "prosperity"?

For the manufacturing to increase our prosperity it should increase our standard of living, not decrease it by imposing higher costs onto us, or making us pay higher cost for the same production. How is it increasing our "prosperity" to impose these higher costs and not give us anything in return? All the production being propped up by this happens only by inflicting higher costs and thus less production elsewhere in the economy which has to pay for it. Where's the net gain in that?

Biden reiterated plans announced on the campaign trail to replace the fleet of federal cars with U.S.-made electric vehicles.

Fine -- replace them with whatever vehicles give the best quality for the money. The taxpayers are entitled to the most competitive production for the dollars they're spending, regardless of the nationality of the producers.

Revitalizing the manufacturing sector, which accounts for about 12% of the U.S. economy, is a key part of Biden’s broader push to drive up wages, create more . . .

Notice it's not to improve the production or the performance of the companies, or increase the benefits to consumers or to the nation. It's just to drive up wages = higher cost of production = higher prices to consumers and taxpayers who have to pay for it. How does increasing the cost burden on 330 million consumers and taxpayers, with no improvement in the production, make the nation better off?

. . . drive up wages, create more union jobs, support . . .

How does propping up unions at taxpayers' expense make the nation more prosperous? Why not let the union workers just compete with all the other workers, and let those who perform best get the business because they offer a better product to consumers and taxpayers? Why shouldn't the rewards be based on merit, where those who perform better get more of the business in return for their better performance? rather than rewarding those who are more aggressive at lobbying the politicians and exerting more political clout?

. . . more union jobs, support minority-owned businesses and strengthen . . .

Yes, eliminate all discrimination against minority-owned businesses (including non-union), or whatever else artificially directs the business toward anyone other than the most competitive. Let all the producers be chosen based on merit and competition, rather than artificial discrimination of any kind which favors any special interest and causes higher cost to consumers/taxpayers. All the taxpayer dollars should be spent most efficiently to gain the highest return, without regard to anything other than getting the best deal. The taxpayers are entitled to the best deal, just as consumers in the marketplace are. The best quality at the lowest price, no matter where it's produced or what is the ethnicity or race or nationality or religion of the producers.

. . . and strengthen U.S. supply chains, White House officials say.

The most competitive production always finds the best supply chains, automatically, with the buyer needing only to seek the best deal, or the best quality at the lowest price, without regard to the producer's ethnicity or race or nationality or religion. The government's job is to give the taxpayers the best deal for their money, not make them pay higher costs in order to promote racist nativist pseudo-patriotic xenophobic prejudice, such as Donald Trump did and President Biden is doing with this phony worn-out protectionist "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" babble-barf.

 

[Jarhyn]

I heard he just axed 11000 union jobs with the keystone pipeline. They would still be working if he would have done just nothing at all.

If he axed the TSA I wouldn't mourn that either.

Not every human endeavor is worth retaining and protecting.

I'm.sure germany lost a lot of jobs when such positions as Oven Technician or Camp Councilor or Shower Administrator went away, too, that the south lost a lot of jobs when Motivational Supervisor and Personnel Security positions went away at plantations in the south. I'm not going to really be all that broken up when Insurance workers lose jobs when private insurance goes away either.

Maybe they can go back to school and get jobs installing solar panels or turbine pylons. We should absolutely keep the doors open for displaced workers to retrain.

Granted you will need to clarify, was the XL "almost built", and so those 11k "jobs" already in danger of going away or was it not, and then another several years of environmental destruction before they turn on the damn thing and spray oil everywhere?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I heard he just axed 11000 union jobs with the keystone pipeline. They would still be working if he would have done just nothing at all.

Yeah, actually that number is 11,000,000 union jobs... high paying union jobs, 11,000,000,000 lifetime union jobs!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wait -- What does "leverage the purchasing power" mean?

It means the government spends a lot of money, and can use that broad spending to to require those receiving said money to buying certain services or products. For instance, the Federal Government spends a lot of money on construction jobs. So they can pressure the use of US Steel. Stuff like that.

 

[Derec]

You heard bullshit propaganda.

How is that bullshit? Construction jobs only need construction workers while they are being built. Just like a car doesn't require assembly workers after it is made.

One of the advantages of pipelines is that their operation is relatively cheap, compared to alternatives like oil trains. They are safer too. But being anti-pipeline has become an article of faith on the left wing of the Democratic Party, and unfortunately Old Man Biden is caving to them already.

I can't imagine this will be popular in the swing districts and states. I bet Pelosi and Schumer see their majorities slipping away in 2022 ...

 

[Derec]

Not every human endeavor is worth retaining and protecting.

No. But pipelines are very useful.
I am all for building a post-oil/gas future. But in the present, and for the few decades into the future, we very much need those sources of energy.
And drilling at home and importing from friends like Canada is preferable to buying from the likes of Putin.



Do you know the only reason why we are #1 in oil production?
FRACKING! Something left wingers detest. Without fracking we'd lose half of oil production and 2/3 of gas production.

I'm.sure germany lost a lot of jobs when such positions as Oven Technician or Camp Councilor or Shower Administrator went away, too, that the south lost a lot of jobs when Motivational Supervisor and Personnel Security positions went away at plantations in the south. I'm not going to really be all that broken up when Insurance workers lose jobs when private insurance goes away either.

You heard it here folks. Pipelines are just as bad as Nazis and slavery.

Maybe they can go back to school and get jobs installing solar panels or turbine pylons.

Wind turbines are a stupid technology. Solar (esp. photovoltaics) is much, much better, but again, it will take decades to replace oil and gas, including having to wait until vast majority of vehicles on the road are electric.
First order of business should be to get rid of coal as fast as possible. Not to nix pipelines and fracking.
Coal is very dirty and more carbon intensive than either oil and gas. So that should be the focus. Unfortunately, coal miners still have some sort of romantic resonance in leftist folklore, unlike oil/gas drillers. So the leftist vitriol against the much cleaner oil and gas industries is much stronger than against coal.

should absolutely keep the doors open for displaced workers to retrain.

We should not have to retrain them since pipelines are still very much needed.

Granted you will need to clarify, was the XL "almost built", and so those 11k "jobs" already in danger of going away or was it not, and then another several years of environmental destruction before they turn on the damn thing and spray oil everywhere?

Pipelines don't spray oil everywhere. But I gather you prefer oil trains?


The fire also melted the tracks for the choo choo from Queens to Hawaii, so to top it all off, AOC is having a sad.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How is Biden's "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" blabber any better than Trump's?

Here's more from the above Reuter's article. Since this is cited to support Biden's announcement, we can assume that it essentially reflects his "buy American" policy, and also puts him and Trump together pretty much in the same protectionist "America-First" nativist "jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs! jobs!" choir (with Bernie Sanders grunting along with his "Good-paying jobs! Good-paying jobs!" chant).

Boosting U.S. manufacturing has proven a vexing challenge for previous administrations, including that of former President Donald Trump.

Why is it necessary to "boost" any sector of the economy over the others? There is no way to promote any one sector without imposing higher costs onto other sectors which have to pay for it. What is the net gain of promoting "manufacturing" at the expense of other sectors which are suppressed in order to pay this cost?

The truth is that any "manufacturing" that is promoted happens only by DEmoting other manufacturing, because every form of "boosting manufacturing" only means promoting certain select manufacturing, such as steel or autos, and doing this by imposing costs onto all other kinds of manufacturing. How do you judge which kind of manufacturing deserves to be boosted and which kind suppressed in order pay the cost of boosting the preferred manufacturing?

“America can’t sit on the sidelines in the race to the future. Our competitors aren’t waiting,” Biden said.

What "race" are they winning by subsidizing certain sectors of the economy at the expense of all the other sectors? Not every country does this, though maybe most do. But there's no reason to believe they're better off. There's no reason to single out steel or autos for special promotion at the expense of all other sectors, as if this makes a country better off.

“To ensure the future is made in America, we need to win not just the jobs of today, but the jobs and industries of tomorrow.”

It's delusional to imagine "the future" is made in any one country by suppressing some parts of its economy in order to promote another select part. Or that "the jobs and industries of tomorrow" are won by selecting certain favored sectors to somehow own the future, while the others can be sacrificed in order to promote the select favored sectors.

Manufacturers have been attracted by lower wages and weaker environmental standards in China and other countries in recent decades. This exodus has resulted in critical gaps that have been laid bare during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as the making of medical equipment.

This is a lie. There is no reason to believe we have LESS medical equipment as a result of importing medical equipment. Of course any country could produce more of this or other needed product. Any increased production (of something needed) anywhere is beneficial. But increased imports due to lower cost can never lead to a shortage of anything being imported.

If there is any "gap" today, it's the gap between the superior American system compared to China's system, including superiority in health equipment and technology. I.e., it's the U.S. purchase of so much technology from China and other sources, plus domestic production, which has made the U.S. superior over China. It's not where the technology is produced that matters, but how much is invested in those resources and in the better trained specialists. The U.S. is importing not only the better technology, but also the better practitioners and specialists.

If we were not importing all this foreign help, equipment and people, we'd be far worse off, not better off as Biden falsely implies, by saying our China trade somehow makes us worse off or less prepared for medical need.

There's probably much wrong with America's response to the pandemic, and preparedness, but it has nothing to do with some kind of over-reliance on China and other foreign sources. Our foreign deals have made us richer and more prepared, not less.

Our problems are partly a failure to invest more in science and technology, and to promote more science education. And probably also failure to interact MORE with other countries to promote science and technology. It has nothing to do with any need to withdraw from any other country, including China, and wave U.S. flags and do "buy American" crusades as if foreign input to our economy taints us and makes us inferior.


In a recent speech, Biden condemned the ZERO-SUM-GAIN rhetoric of the isolationists, and yet look what the Reuters article says here about China's recent increased manufacturing:

China overtook the United States as the world’s top manufacturer in 2010, and was responsible for 28% of global output in 2018, according to United Nations data.

Is this bad, that China increased output? We're supposed to want bad outcomes for China? China's improvement in something means U.S. loss?

So here's our "buy American"/Biden sloganism falling back on the zero-sum-gain dogma that any gain in China has to mean a loss for the United States.

Notice what the above implies about why China made some gain in medical equipment production:

Manufacturers have been attracted by lower wages and weaker environmental standards in China and other countries in recent decades. This exodus has resulted in critical gaps . . .

Is this bad, that China gained in production? How did they do it? It appears that it's the lower wages and weaker regulations.

If China and those other countries had driven up wages, like the U.S. and developed countries do, then there would have been LESS produced, not more. And there would be LESS medical equipment than there is.

Any country can produce more by letting the manufacturing wage level remain low, and relaxing some regulations. Each country decides what its cost-vs-benefit factors are. And when anything is available at lower cost, from abroad, everyone is better off from the resulting increased trade. We're better off from China's improvements, while no one is made better off from Biden's or Trump's China-bashing.

There is nothing wrong with the U.S. having higher environmental standards, and thus some decreased production, and buying from China if it can produce the same at lower cost. This makes everyone better off, based on each country's judgment how to balance its costs and benefits.

So Biden's "buy American" China-bashing and xenophobia is no improvement over Trump's.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is a lie. There is no reason to believe we have LESS medical equipment as a result of importing medical equipment. Of course any country could produce more of this or other needed product. Any increased production (of something needed) anywhere is beneficial. But increased imports due to lower cost can never lead to a shortage of anything being imported.

Reality: When China suddenly wanted all those masks for domestic purposes our imports of PPE crashed.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Boycotts, sanctions, embargoes can only DECREASE, not INcrease the supply of a needed product.

There is no reason to believe we have LESS medical equipment as a result of importing medical equipment. Of course any country could produce more of this or other needed product. Any increased production (of something needed) anywhere is beneficial. But increased imports due to lower cost can never lead to a shortage of anything being imported.

Reality: When China suddenly wanted all those masks for domestic purposes our imports of PPE crashed.

And so restricting imports would somehow fix that? Suddenly we'd have all the masks we need by banning all Chinese mask imports? How would banning Chinese masks increase our supply? Or, how would banning the mask imports 2 or 3 years ago have increased our supply when the pandemic began?

If we did anything wrong, it's that we did not import MORE of them earlier (and probably production would have increased in order to meet the increased demand), and also that U.S. or other non-Chinese companies did not also produce them to increase the supply, perhaps reverse-engineering the Chinese masks (if there was anything essential about the Chinese design) and producing our own version of them.

Chinese production is increasing to meet the need. There is every reason to believe that if all the production had been limited to "Made in America" only, we'd be worse off today. The U.S. would have been slower to respond to the emergency than the Chinese increased production happening now.

It's nutty to say that we have less now because we were importing too many. The opposite is the case, as China is stepping up production. You don't increase your supply of something by not importing it. If you need more than you're importing, then someone has to produce more of the product, beyond the quantity being imported, but NOT INSTEAD of the imports. And if there's a potential emergency (shortage) situation which would threaten the whole nation, then the government has to take steps to build up the supply, in reserve, getting them produced one way or another -- NOT BANNING anything or restricting imports.

It's phony xenophobic nuttiness, not economics, to say the foreign producers are to blame for our shortage, and that shutting ourselves off from foreign producers is what builds our economy. It's poor planning, lack of foresight, failure to prepare for the unexpected, which is to blame, not that we aren't prejudiced enough against the damn Chinese and other foreigners.

Why didn't some U.S. companies make copycat versions of the Chinese masks, if there was a risk of shortage? We can just as easily copy their product as they can ours, or improve on theirs, and stockpile large quantities of the product for possible future need.

There have been numerous warnings about the danger of a pandemic just like what we're having. Why didn't we anticipate it and make better preparation? Scapegoating foreign/Chinese competition is a cheap way of excusing those who were incompetent and irresponsible in their failure to anticipate the need and take the necessary steps.

Many of the masks now worn are Chinese-made. If we had banned these imports earlier, and instead required only "made in America" masks, probably costing at least twice as much, there's every reason to believe the shortage today would be greater than it is, with the supply of them being less, not more. Banning something because "we" didn't make it doesn't solve anything, or increase the supply of what is needed.

Also, if we should ban imports because they're produced by "slave labor," this would only decrease our supply and leave us worse off, not better and not more prepared, and also would do nothing to benefit the "slaves" we're pretending to help.


Chinese "slave labor"?

Are some of the masks produced by "slave labor"?



If there's anything alarming about this (use of "slaves") it's that China is resorting to "extreme measures" in order to meet the sudden higher demand. It's evidence that China sees an urgent need and is responding accordingly. Much worse measures have been taken historically in order to meet an emergency situation, such as military conscription, e.g.

The narrator in the video says that the "slave" labor is being used in order to meet the sudden higher demand. She also says the program "often puts people to work against their will," meaning often it's NOT against their will. So, what percent are "slaves" working against their will, and what percent are working freely?

Nothing would be gained by banning these imported masks, neither for us or for the Chinese "slaves" in the factories. There's no reason to believe that if we banned these "slave labor" imports there would be any improvement for the Uighur workers being used for this production.

If we want to help this minority population in China, we should offer to accept them as immigrants to our country (or to Europe, Australia, Canada, etc.), to let them live elsewhere than in China where they are discriminated against. If we cannot do that, then what do we offer them by just preaching that we're morally superior to the Chinese?

It was not morally wrong, or a net harm, for the British to continue buying cotton from the South during the Civil War, and nor is it a net harm for the U.S. and other countries to buy "slave labor" products today from China. If we were to boycott China until it abolishes its "slave labor," it would make everyone in the world worse off, including all the Chinese "slaves," and the total suffering in the world would greatly increase.

Other than offering sanctuary to the Uighurs (and a billion other Chinese), there is no other action we can take to help these "slave" workers, including any boycott or sanctions against China. Buying the masks because we need them does the maximum to BENEFIT these workers, and does not make them worse off. Whereas banning the "slave labor" imports would be symbolic only and make those workers WORSE off.

It could be argued that China today has more "slave" workers than it did under Mao. But it's also true that virtually all the Chinese are better off today, including freer overall, just like U.S. "slave" workers are better off than 100 years ago, partly due to increased trade and trafficking in "slave labor" products.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is no reason to believe we have LESS medical equipment as a result of importing medical equipment. Of course any country could produce more of this or other needed product. Any increased production (of something needed) anywhere is beneficial. But increased imports due to lower cost can never lead to a shortage of anything being imported.

Reality: When China suddenly wanted all those masks for domestic purposes our imports of PPE crashed.

And so restricting imports would somehow fix that? Suddenly we'd have all the masks we need by banning all Chinese mask imports? How would banning Chinese masks increase our supply? Or, how would banning the mask imports 2 or 3 years ago have increased our supply when the pandemic began?

You don't understand the situation. Had we limited imports some years back we would have had more American production when the shit hit the fan and the shortages wouldn't have been as bad.

(It also would have helped if His Flatulence had been willing to fund the capital improvements needed to ramp up US production. The mask makers were hesitant about increasing production as they had previously been burned, increasing capability in the past and then not having the demand to maintain the higher production.)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

And so restricting imports would somehow fix that? Suddenly we'd have all the masks we need by banning all Chinese mask imports? How would banning Chinese masks increase our supply? Or, how would banning the mask imports 2 or 3 years ago have increased our supply when the pandemic began?

You don't understand the situation. Had we limited imports some years back we would have had more American production when the shit hit . . .

No, we would have had less product. I.e., less would have been produced, as a result of the higher cost and higher prices = less demand. You don't increase the total amount produced by penalizing some of the product or driving up the cost/price for it.

That there is a foreign producer or foreign products in our market means there is MORE availability of the product, not less. Whereas suppressing any products or punishing any producers means there is LESS of the product. You could suppress or punish production by Catholics in order to motivate Protestants to produce more, but this won't increase the total being produced. ALL the production adds to the total supply, no matter what is the ethnicity or nationality or religion or astrological sign of the producers. Nothing is gained by putting the producers into different categories and suppressing some in order to encourage others.

If there's a need to drive up production to a higher level, or prepare for future need (such as stockpiling), the way to do that is by buying more of the product, or increasing the demand for it. Nothing is gained by suppressing any of the production (foreign or domestic) and driving up the cost of production.

Less offensive would be to subsidize some production, to increase supply. Possibly offer some kind of subsidy to any domestic production, with no preference to any one producer, but some kind of subsidy to all the production, so the cost is lower. Even a Chinese company locating in the country would get the subsidy. Possibly this would be a legitimate way to promote domestic production.

. . . we would have had more American production when the shit hit the fan and the shortages wouldn't have been as bad.

We don't know there would have been enough American production which would have replaced all the Chinese production taking place. Even if there have been some shortages, the production now has greatly increased, and this has likely happened at a faster pace than the American production would have. We don't know that the U.S. production would have met the sudden increased need. All we know is that the cost of production would have been driven way up by suppressing the imports, thus making the mask production more risky and less profitable to any producer foreign or domestic.

Some form of increasing the demand and encouraging MORE production has to yield better results than any suppression of product and penalizing producers or suppliers. And MORE competition is always better than less, no matter what is being produced, by incentivizing anything to improve the quality and quantity. If we need the masks, higher quality and quantity has to serve this need better, whereas suppressing any production and competition between producers must lead to lower quality and quantity.

Of course it's always possible to devote a huge percent of the economy to one kind of production by sacrificing everything else, like the WW2 sacrifice for the military need. But we can't predict that face masks or any other particular product is so essential that everything else has to be sacrificed for that one production. It's better to allow ALL production with no interference or penalty on any of it, and possibly add to this some kind of subsidy for something critical to survival, so certain critical production is given extra encouragement.

But not interference with any production or discriminating against certain producers, leading to less total production.

(It also would have helped if His Flatulence had been willing to fund the capital improvements needed to ramp up US production. The mask makers were hesitant about increasing production as they had previously been burned, increasing capability in the past and then not having the demand to maintain the higher production.)

Whatever form the public investment takes, it should be something ALL producers could take advantage of, offering the incentive to any producer meeting the requirements. It can't just be some form of corporate welfare which picks winners and losers. Some form of buying the product which meets specified standards would get the right result, and stockpiling it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, we would have had less product. I.e., less would have been produced, as a result of the higher cost and higher prices = less demand. You don't increase the total amount produced by penalizing some of the product or driving up the cost/price for it.

That there is a foreign producer or foreign products in our market means there is MORE availability of the product, not less. Whereas suppressing any products or punishing any producers means there is LESS of the product. You could suppress or punish production by Catholics in order to motivate Protestants to produce more, but this won't increase the total being produced. ALL the production adds to the total supply, no matter what is the ethnicity or nationality or religion or astrological sign of the producers. Nothing is gained by putting the producers into different categories and suppressing some in order to encourage others.

You're getting stuck on the idea that the market is all-controlling.

What you are missing is that the state can override the market. The Chinese imports didn't stop for economic reasons, but because the Chinese government ordered the companies to meet domestic demand first.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

China-bashing doesn't fix anything.

No, we would have had less product. I.e., less would have been produced, as a result of the higher cost and higher prices = less demand. You don't increase the total amount produced by penalizing some of the product or driving up the cost/price for it.

That there is a foreign producer or foreign products in our market means there is MORE availability of the product, not less. Whereas suppressing any products or punishing any producers means there is LESS of the product. You could suppress or punish production by Catholics in order to motivate Protestants to produce more, but this won't increase the total being produced. ALL the production adds to the total supply, no matter what is the ethnicity or nationality or religion or astrological sign of the producers. Nothing is gained by putting the producers into different categories and suppressing some in order to encourage others.

You're getting stuck on the idea that the market is all-controlling.

What you are missing is that the state can override the market. The Chinese imports didn't stop for economic reasons, but because the Chinese government ordered the companies to meet domestic demand first.

That doesn't mean the imports were stopped, or that the supply would have been greater if we had restricted the Chinese imports earlier, or that the sudden new need in early 2020 would have been better met. It would have been worse, with less incentive for China to step up production.

What it means is that there was a short-term disruption, but that now the production has been greatly increased, and also the imports have increased. We have no reason to believe that the total availability of the product would have been greater if Chinese imports had been restricted or penalized earlier.

If there's a worry about a future disruption, the solution is to subsidize the production somehow, add more demand, buy more now to stockpile for later.

Penalizing any production or banning imports or suppressing competition in any form, from any source, always makes the products more scarce (or much more costly = higher taxes and prices = lower living standard).

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I heard he just axed 11000 union jobs with the keystone pipeline. They would still be working if he would have done just nothing at all.

Far less jobs than 10,000 and most temporary besides. Biden's push for renewable energy will create far more jobs long term anyway. Besides this initiative.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

And so restricting imports would somehow fix that? Suddenly we'd have all the masks we need by banning all Chinese mask imports? How would banning Chinese masks increase our supply? Or, how would banning the mask imports 2 or 3 years ago have increased our supply when the pandemic began?

You don't understand the situation. Had we limited imports some years back we would have had more American production when the shit hit the fan and the shortages wouldn't have been as bad.

(It also would have helped if His Flatulence had been willing to fund the capital improvements needed to ramp up US production. The mask makers were hesitant about increasing production as they had previously been burned, increasing capability in the past and then not having the demand to maintain the higher production.)

Back in the Obama era, there were bills introduced to fund stand by capacity to make ppp in case of future pandemics, just to avoid this problem. The GOP refused to support in and these efforts died. Because GOP and Obama. And now, here we are.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

How does America benefit from Protectionist demagogues Biden and Trump driving up costs we all must pay?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biden/biden-signs-buy-american-order-pledges-to-renew-u-s-manufacturing-idUSKBN29U0Z3?fbclid=IwAR27Xh7djdq6sjMEHeZMcbjFqFKy_eC1-A4IYQ3z4N8wDhuwZvstS1HclqU&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Joe Biden vowed on Monday to leverage the purchasing power of the U.S. government, the world’s biggest single buyer of goods and services, to strengthen domestic manufacturing and create markets for new technologies [= corporate welfare to select special interests at everyone else's expense].

Wait -- What does "leverage the purchasing power" mean?

It means the government spends a lot of money, and can use that broad spending to require those receiving said money to buying certain services or products.

Why should the government do a stupid thing like that?

For instance, the Federal Government spends a lot of money on construction jobs. So they can pressure the use of US Steel. Stuff like that.

And thus drive up the cost of production and forcing the taxpayers and consumers to pay higher costs? How does the nation gain by driving up costs to taxpayers and consumers?