4 ms·

> On July 1, 2010, Grove wrote: > "The first task is to rebuild our industrial commons. We should develop a system of financial incentives: Levy an extra tax o

by pm90 4y ago

> On July 1, 2010, Grove wrote: > "The first task is to rebuild our industrial commons. We should develop a system of financial incentives: Levy an extra tax on the product of offshored labor. (If the result is a trade war, treat it like other wars—fight to win.) Keep that money separate. Deposit it in the coffers of what we might call the Scaling Bank of the U.S. and make these sums available to companies that will scale their American operations. Such a system would be a daily reminder that while pursuing our company goals, all of us in business have a responsibility to maintain the industrial base on which we depend and the society whose adaptability — and stability — we may have taken for granted. Unemployment is corrosive. If what I'm suggesting sounds protectionist, so be it." I expected to read something novel around increasing public investment in education, investing in infrastructure etc. but the advice seems to be plain old protectionism, which has been shown to not work and only lead to domestic companies not remaining competitive.

lliamander 4y ago
> expected to read something novel around increasing public investment in education Funding for education has gone up for decades (even when accounting for inflation) and results have been flat. > but the advice seems to be plain old protectionism, which has been shown to not work and only lead to domestic companies not remaining competitive. In a truly free market, sure, but that is not the reality of our current order. If nothing else, America-based labor and corporations must compete at a disadvantage relative to their offshored counterparts because of the regulatory and tax burden our government places on them. Perhaps you think those burdens are warranted, but if so it is only fair that the scales be balanced so that Americans can actually compete. To do otherwise is simply to incentivize offshoring to companies that do not provide the level of labor protections we expect here in the West (e.g. Apple using Foxconn as a manufacturing partner). There are other benefits to tariffs, including that they are far less intrusive to the freedoms of the ordinary citizen (the income tax leading to the IRS is one of the most invasive aspects of the the modern state). Lastly, some level of protectionism may be warranted if only to preserve domestic supply chains for critical industries, at least in a regulatory environment that otherwise favors offshoring.
- jemmyw 4y ago
  The only fair way is that whenever you make regulations to protect workers, those regulations need to apply to workers from any country whose goods are imported or are competitive.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    The only fair way to do that is for us to adopt all the labor regulations of say France, in order to export anything into that country (plus all the other labor regulations of all the other countries, many of which will inevitably conflict with each other). That ends (quite quickly I think) in isolation of trade, an inability to pass new labor laws, or a single world government.
  - lliamander 4y ago
    Or just give tariff discounts to those places that treat their workers (and the environment) better.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >Funding for education has gone up for decades (even when accounting for inflation) and results have been flat. Throwing money around in the wrong directions doesn't magically return better results. You need to make sure the money goes to where the pain points are, otherwise it will just get chewed up by the bureaucratic machine and nothing will come out of it.
  - lliamander 4y ago
    Hence why there is no need to throw more money into education. If there are better interventions, then simply have the educational institutions redirect the extra money we are already giving towards things that actually work. That said, there has been much research on educational interventions, and little (if any) of it shows meaningful long term impact.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    Who in America has the fortitude to say we should cut funding to liberal arts and social studies because China sure as heck isn’t wasting money on those.
amadeuspagel 4y ago
> I expected to read something novel around increasing public investment in education, investing in infrastructure etc. If that's what you expected, would it really have been novel?
bfrog 4y ago
Globalization has clearly done wonders for social stability and wealth generation. Yea let’s keep our heads in the sand that’ll work.
rayiner 4y ago
What’s the basis of the assertion that protectionism doesn’t work?

by pm90 4y ago

lliamander 4y ago

> expected to read something novel around increasing public investment in education Funding for education has gone up for decades (even when accounting for inflation) and results have been flat. > but the advice seems to be plain old protectionism, which has been shown to not work and only lead to domestic companies not remaining competitive. In a truly free market, sure, but that is not the reality of our current order. If nothing else, America-based labor and corporations must compete at a disadvantage relative to their offshored counterparts because of the regulatory and tax burden our government places on them. Perhaps you think those burdens are warranted, but if so it is only fair that the scales be balanced so that Americans can actually compete. To do otherwise is simply to incentivize offshoring to companies that do not provide the level of labor protections we expect here in the West (e.g. Apple using Foxconn as a manufacturing partner). There are other benefits to tariffs, including that they are far less intrusive to the freedoms of the ordinary citizen (the income tax leading to the IRS is one of the most invasive aspects of the the modern state). Lastly, some level of protectionism may be warranted if only to preserve domestic supply chains for critical industries, at least in a regulatory environment that otherwise favors offshoring.

jemmyw 4y ago
The only fair way is that whenever you make regulations to protect workers, those regulations need to apply to workers from any country whose goods are imported or are competitive.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  The only fair way to do that is for us to adopt all the labor regulations of say France, in order to export anything into that country (plus all the other labor regulations of all the other countries, many of which will inevitably conflict with each other). That ends (quite quickly I think) in isolation of trade, an inability to pass new labor laws, or a single world government.
- lliamander 4y ago
  Or just give tariff discounts to those places that treat their workers (and the environment) better.
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>Funding for education has gone up for decades (even when accounting for inflation) and results have been flat. Throwing money around in the wrong directions doesn't magically return better results. You need to make sure the money goes to where the pain points are, otherwise it will just get chewed up by the bureaucratic machine and nothing will come out of it.
- lliamander 4y ago
  Hence why there is no need to throw more money into education. If there are better interventions, then simply have the educational institutions redirect the extra money we are already giving towards things that actually work. That said, there has been much research on educational interventions, and little (if any) of it shows meaningful long term impact.
- rayiner 4y ago
  Who in America has the fortitude to say we should cut funding to liberal arts and social studies because China sure as heck isn’t wasting money on those.

amadeuspagel 4y ago

> I expected to read something novel around increasing public investment in education, investing in infrastructure etc. If that's what you expected, would it really have been novel?

bfrog 4y ago

Globalization has clearly done wonders for social stability and wealth generation. Yea let’s keep our heads in the sand that’ll work.

rayiner 4y ago

What’s the basis of the assertion that protectionism doesn’t work?