pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 12 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 24 Mar \ parent \ on: Replacing Cash With CBDC Would Pose A Grave Threat To Our Rights and Freedoms econ
Yes I hear where you are coming from - he is a master of obfuscation, distraction, and just pure showman baloney, but all the moves he is making on trade, tariffs and China do indicate he is aware of and responding to what is happening.
Whether his response will be seen as successful in retrospect I do not know, he might even be enabling others, but recognising a problem is a crucial part of the process toward addressing it.
Biden did not reverse any of Trumps previous tariffs on China and in fact advanced strategic repositioning of strategic manufacturing capacity ala Taiwan microchips to US mainland.
In my opinion, if he were actually knowledgeable about US competitiveness he would be doing the absolute opposite.
reply
What is the opposite of tariffs?
Direct subsidies for manufacturers?
reply
Lowering import duties. Basically making goods cheaper for americans.
and more broadly, investing in infrastructure and additional education for americans so they can upskill/reskill and get better jobs.
The US has a huge shortage of skilled tradespeople for jobs that pay well and i don't know why trump never talks about it
reply
Lowering import duties would worsen the chronic trade deficit.
Investing in infrastructure and education would have results if the underlying economy had areas where it could viably compete internationally- but does it?
When you have been living on credit/debt for decades and your manufacturing skills capacity and infrastructure has been in relative decline because foreign competitors can produce the same goods at a lower cost and higher efficiency, its a difficult bind to get out of.
Reserve currency status and its ability to live beyond your means has led to chronic and widespread structural decline.
reply
Lowering import duties would worsen the chronic trade deficit. Investing in infrastructure and education would have results if the underlying economy had areas where it could viably compete internationally - but does it?
Lowering import duties would lower costs for consumers. And in the long term, help US companies to be more competitive. The "trade deficit" isn't actually a problem.
There is no way Mexico is going to 'buy more from the US' than the US 'buys from Mexico' the US is way wealthier so has more to buy...
The problem of the 'trade deficit' is actually a budget deficit... but that is not an economics problem. It is a political problem.
Most federal spending is in Medicare, Social Security, and Defense... but if you're a politician good luck cutting spending in those areas.
As far as infrastructure and education goes... there is a huge shortage of skilled tradespeople. Electricians, welders, master plumbers... there aren't enough in the US so that's what people do to get better jobs... and the government should help them. "The debt" doesn't matter at this point. Either the US gets more competitive... or it won't matter in the long run anyway.
The big threat the US faces isn't necessarily excessive borrowing (although that is an issue) it's lack of global competitiveness.
And the solution if there is one is investments in education, infrastructure, and new technologies.
If that doesn't get sorted out, the debt will never get repaid and the US is cooked regardless.
If it does get sorted out... (and the US becomes more competitive again) the debt is still significant but it will be OK eventually. People will still buy US debt even if it looks like a "bad idea".
A more competitive US and people will be eager to buy it for what it's worth.
reply
deleted by author
reply
Yes the US still has advantage in some areas and if it can rebuild expand competitiveness that could reverse the decline.
But its a difficult task when from the issuance of debt/capital down through the multiple branches of regulation, planning, investment, education, infrastructure and governance there has been corruption and rentseeking by private capital interests who act in their own interests and have come to dictate to government/s what suits them rather than the government setting the agenda.
Western governments come and go, sponsored by bankers and corporate lobbyists, and when they have allowed and enabled structural reforms that do not enhance the development and overall wealth of the nation but rather enable profiteering and rentseeking for a few corporate interests, there are no real consequences for the politicians who did this.
In China in contrast, if the CCP does not deliver constant improvement on the whole it knows it risks a very brutal removal from power.
Ironically the Chinese autocracy is in practice, arguably, potentially more accountable than western corporate sponsored and directed 'democracies' have become.
The problem is in the apex of the nation state- the government, that has been captured by private interests and no longer serves the common good...and the body of the western democratic nation state- the citizens who have grown complacent and apathetic and allowed this to continue.