3 ms·

Pretty sure removing regulations on energy development (and therefore, cost) are an effort to supporting manufacturing, and Trump has taken an aggressive stance

by PKop 10y ago

Pretty sure removing regulations on energy development (and therefore, cost) are an effort to supporting manufacturing, and Trump has taken an aggressive stance at repealing as much regulation especially in the energy sector, as he can[0][1][2]. Those are just a few citations, but just look up some of his executive actions and orders, as well as some recent legislation he's signed. Some of these addresses repeal of regulations (Using the Congressional Review Act). The GOP border-adjustment tax is being worked on currently. While debatable in how it does or does not favor imports or exports, at the very least seems to favor establishing business in the US and eliminate tax benefits of incorporating outside the US.[3] This, and his general desire for a slashing of the corporate rate, should incentivize corporations (manufacturing and otherwise) to move, stay, and hire in US, and move US from one of highest rate countries to one of the lowest. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2017/03/28/trump-in-the-name-of-american-energy-independence-scraps-obamas-climate-plans/#4c2ab7442258 https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2017/03/28/tr... [1] http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/02/trump-to-sign-repeal-of-obama-era-coal-mining-regulation/ http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/02/trump-to-sign-repeal-of-ob... [2]http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/319488-trump-signs-repeal-of-transparency-rule-for-oil-companies http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/319488-trump-si... [3] https://taxfoundation.org/faqs-border-adjustment/ https://taxfoundation.org/faqs-border-adjustment/

WorldMaker 10y ago
These are supply-side arguments that still continue to fail to impress when implemented in reality. Just to narrow to one obvious piece: the difference in type of energy matters if the goal is to support local manufacturing. It's a variation of the "Buy Local" argument applied to manufacturing suppliers. Reducing the cost/regulation of oil/gas/coal doesn't support local manufacturing near as much as it continues to support/cheapen global shipping costs (because oil/gas/coal continue to transport well across borders, and continue to keep cargo ships/planes fed). On the other hand, increasing solar/wind is a much more "local" energy resource investment (it's tough enough just to store it for time-shifting, much less to transport across borders) and might be better for the stated goal.
xenadu02 10y ago
Electricity in the US is already cheaper than China thanks to renewables and natural gas. You're really reaching there.
nikdaheratik 10y ago
I think this argument is a bit specious. While taking steps to reduce the cost of energy may have an indirect effect on manufacturing in energy intensive industries, the main goal of this policy is to improve the bottom line of energy companies to the tune of billions of dollars. Companies which also happen to be huge campaign contributors. This would be like claiming that loosening the banking regulations was part of the Administration's plan to boost consumer spending, while ignoring the fact that it also helps those companies make billions of dollars more than they otherwise would have.

by PKop 10y ago

WorldMaker 10y ago

These are supply-side arguments that still continue to fail to impress when implemented in reality. Just to narrow to one obvious piece: the difference in type of energy matters if the goal is to support local manufacturing. It's a variation of the "Buy Local" argument applied to manufacturing suppliers. Reducing the cost/regulation of oil/gas/coal doesn't support local manufacturing near as much as it continues to support/cheapen global shipping costs (because oil/gas/coal continue to transport well across borders, and continue to keep cargo ships/planes fed). On the other hand, increasing solar/wind is a much more "local" energy resource investment (it's tough enough just to store it for time-shifting, much less to transport across borders) and might be better for the stated goal.

xenadu02 10y ago

Electricity in the US is already cheaper than China thanks to renewables and natural gas. You're really reaching there.

nikdaheratik 10y ago

I think this argument is a bit specious. While taking steps to reduce the cost of energy may have an indirect effect on manufacturing in energy intensive industries, the main goal of this policy is to improve the bottom line of energy companies to the tune of billions of dollars. Companies which also happen to be huge campaign contributors. This would be like claiming that loosening the banking regulations was part of the Administration's plan to boost consumer spending, while ignoring the fact that it also helps those companies make billions of dollars more than they otherwise would have.