321–330 of 489 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> More accurately: there's more consensus around national security spending than social spending. Is there? Or is there just more consensus among the elite and Ivy League educated who dominate security discussion and policy?
What answer do you expect to get to your argumentative question?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we wanted local control then local towns/cities and counties would have the most power in our system. Instead things are reversed so smaller units of government have progressively less power. This makes sense because we want people to freely move around the country without encountering wildly different systems in every small town.
Also, when education funding happens on the county level we end up having wildly different standards of education depending on if your county is where rich people live or not - everyone wants to demand the best for their own children, but I think it's pretty settled that children, who don't have freedom of movement and aren't viewed as fully rationale agents, should have access to good education regardless of who the…
WaPo article, which has more details about the bill and less details about what different “personalities” are saying: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/27/senate-ch... . Overall, it looks great. We absolutely need to fund more semiconductor manufacturing. Losing that ability to China/Taiwan was just a terrible strategic mistake. The US hasn’t lost this battle (over semiconductors) just yet. While curren…
Can we not frame this as a battle or even a war? The US lost this capability a long time ago due to labor costs and natural resource consumption. From the labor cost and natural resource consumption a operation of this size can easily fail. We need more partners in this not just a handout. This action should have little to no input on any globalized leverage system. For this to be successful we need more partners
This rings hollow when all of America's major partners are pumping massive subsidies to their domestic companies to win. Case and point SK is subsidizing their Fabs to the tune of $450 Bn.[1]
[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-13/korea-unv... [1 Non paywalled]: https://archive.ph/9Gs8q
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody changes it because they know they are going to need it when they are the minority. Someone is gonna have to take one for the team and pull the plug on it, but I have little faith in our government ever doing the “principled” thing.
In 2013, Senator Harry Reid did it for federal judges (and not supreme court judges). At the time, McConnell told them that if they killed the filibuster for federal judges, he would kill it for supreme court justices. In 2017, he followed through on his promise, the orange fool appointed 3 justices, and now Roe v. Wade has been overturned. It would not be crazy to link the overturning of Roe to the 2013 decision of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no such thing as "the free market" - it's this mythologized idea that people keep pushing, usually to damage workers so they can ship jobs offshore. If anything, the more something resembles a "free market", the worse it is - you don't think Intel wouldn't poison the water supply if it juiced the Q4 earnings? It's always more economical to just dump the toxic waste into the local river. If anything these sub…
"The General Market's mechanisms are always operating - even when governments like to believe they've overruled it. For guns and bombs and red tape and regulations can only obstruct a consumer's quest for what he wants; they can never destroy his insatiable desire to improve his life and enjoy greater mental well-being. The self-interest of each human being, his continual search for whatever he wants, is a natural la…
> The self-interest of each human being, his continual search for whatever he wants, is a natural law.
I disagree that subsidizing R&D to a few companies is going to make us more competitive. Look at GE or Boeing, it didn’t work out. What works is a free market. Raise import costs on CPUs and you’ll incentivize building in the US and more companies to form. It costs $0 tax dollars and brings in revenue and high paying jobs. Similar to what we did with car manufacturing.
Undoubtedly this is a massive gift from taxpayers to Intel. Hard to see anything good in that. I also agree that subsidizing R&D isn't a reliable strategy to make us more competitive. Government incentivizes to find solutions works much better. BUT building high-end fabs is SO very capital intensive, that I think this actually could work out. This might actually be a case where the skids need to be greased a bit (to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we not frame this as a battle or even a war? The US lost this capability a long time ago due to labor costs and natural resource consumption. From the labor cost and natural resource consumption a operation of this size can easily fail. We need more partners in this not just a handout. This action should have little to no input on any globalized leverage system. For this to be successful we need more partners
>We need more partners in this not just a handout. This rings hollow when all of America's major partners are pumping massive subsidies to their domestic companies to win. Case and point SK is subsidizing their Fabs to the tune of $450 Bn.[1] [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-13/korea-unv... [1 Non paywalled]: https://archive.ph/9Gs8q
How much further will their their money go locally than ours? I want us to spend our money on the next generation but what economic window are we planning to occupy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> More accurately: there's more consensus around national security spending than social spending. Is there? Or is there just more consensus among the elite and Ivy League educated who dominate security discussion and policy?
What answer do you expect to get to your argumentative question?
e.g. at current market shares, we could
- 10% tax for Asia manufacturing
- 20% tax for Taiwan manufacturing
By moving away from these centers, taxes would be adjusted say annually
I think this would be interesting for other industries too
#ChinaDecoupling
It should be noted that the US decided not to extend the universal free school meals program, because it was "too expensive" at $11B. They also stopped the expanded and early payment of family tax credits, causing a double-whammy hit to poor families (then pile on inflation/food prices, and gas prices). But $50B to large monopolistic companies isn't "too expensive," and we can afford that . Unfortunately 52 senators…