6 ms·

Which regulations?

by deycallmeajay 3y ago

Which regulations?

explaininjs 3y ago
Environmental ones, perhaps? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=335yX5kj7is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=335yX5kj7is
- speedylight 3y ago
  Environmental laws are necessary to make sure we’re not poisoning ourselves or the planet.
  - newsclues 3y ago
    That doesn't mean the current laws are not contributing to a problem that is prolonging a war that kills people and has a very nasty environmental impact. Winning wars fast is good environmental policy. Just because environmental laws made aid to ensure humans to poison our planet, doesn't meant the current policy is perfect, effective, or the best policy possible.
roenxi 3y ago
Environmental, labour, safety and energy are the usual 4 horsemen that I have seen. Just listing a random point from my collection of squeaky-wheel arguments on the topic: * I frankly don't know how to make it a persuasive message, but my experience in English speaking countries is that it is generally illegal to make mistakes or skimp on quality. That means it is impossible for industries to learn how to do new things. Look at the treatment of Boeing after 2 airplane crashes for example and ask what that would mean for a new company attempting to learn how to operate in the space. With no room to fail, it is a challenge for new companies to succeed. There were even calls to nationalise them which is ... not likely but also not comforting as an investor. It is darn risky to put money into manufacturing spaces with attitudes like that, it is safer to go with cat picture delivery platforms. * The US has particulate air pollution that is half of South Korea's and a quarter of China. It is a pretty reasonable guess that air pollution would be mostly industrial production that the US would shut down for environmental concerns. * US labour laws are an impediment. That new fab plant that TSMC was trying to build in the US seemed to be falling over because it was illegal to use skilled, experienced labour. * The US is seeing declines in per-capita energy availability and flat actual production. That is almost certainly a policy choice linked to anti-fossil-fuel ideologies, Asia has been seeing seeing crazy growth. It is hard to do energy-intensive activities like manufacturing in an environment where securing energy is a battle. There have been something like 50 years of anti-industrial policy in the west. A lot of the capital was built in China/Asia. It should be a literal embarrassment that we're being outdone at capitalism by nominal communists and legitimate authoritarians.
- pmontra 3y ago
  Capitalism is not at odds with authoritarianism. They are orthogonal. The only thing capitalists must not do in those places is piss off the dear liders of their country.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    Yeah. How could the Chinese out-capital the US if capitalism was at odds with authoritarianism? But unless it adopts some really stupid ideologies a liberal system should be able to produce more and better capitalists than an authoritarian one. Free markets breed capitalists like dropped donuts attract ants. It isn't like China is getting the best value out of their billion-odd people; the inefficiencies caused by over-centralisation there are still breathtaking and tragic.
- anonymous-panda 3y ago
  > Look at the treatment of Boeing after 2 airplane crashes for example Well, Boeing was taken to task not for trying to innovate and making mistakes but for lying (fraud) and regulatory capture of the FAA (something a smaller competitor can’t do and in fact likely prevents smaller competitors). As an investor, the former should make you wary and as a flier the latter should make you scared. > The US has particulate air pollution that is half of South Korea's and a quarter of China. It is a pretty reasonable guess that air pollution would be mostly industrial production that the US would shut down for environmental concerns. Considering the primary stated motivator by many industrial companies for outsourcing to China was labor costs and not environmental regulations, I wouldn’t be so confident in this claim. This is borne out by research which tries to compare environmental regulations across regulatory regimes: > In our newest research, we compared risk regulation in China and the United States, and we have also found a more complex pattern that does not support the longstanding conventional view of U.S. regulation being much more stringent than in China. https://www.theregreview.org/2021/12/20/xu-wiener-comparing-us-chinese-environmental-risk-regulation/ https://www.theregreview.org/2021/12/20/xu-wiener-comparing-... > * US labour laws are an impediment. That new fab plant that TSMC was trying to build in the US seemed to be falling over because it was illegal to use skilled, experienced labour. I don’t know what you’re referring to but generally the problems with such endeavors are that skilled work in a different cultural and regulatory environment is challenging and this applies to European companies trying to enter the US market and US companies trying to enter other markets for the first time too, especially when it comes to complex technical projects. Also, the primary labor laws that tend to be an impediment are things like worker safety and compensation. The latter is a bit less important for highly skilled labor but safety is certainly not. I think the bigger problem is trade arrangements that have long ignored these rather than estimating the cost worker safety regulations impose and taxing products from regimes that don’t have good regulations. > The US is seeing declines in per-capita energy availability and flat actual production. That is almost certainly a policy choice linked to anti-fossil-fuel ideologies, Asia has been seeing seeing crazy growth. It is hard to do energy-intensive activities like manufacturing in an environment where securing energy is a battle. That seems like a leap when China is installing a lot of nuclear and solar energy. Yes they’re also still building coal plants but that’s intended to be as a backstop for solar until they build enough nuclear capacity. > It should be a literal embarrassment that we're being outdone at capitalism by nominal communists China hasn’t really been a communist country in anything more than name for quite a while and is actually pretty capitalist despite their own claims to the contrary (they still like to pretend): https://www.cato.org/policy-report/january/february-2013/how-china-became-capitalist https://www.cato.org/policy-report/january/february-2013/how... You seem to like to state something that may be true but jump to a conclusion without any supporting evidence for making that claim. I’ve noticed Tucker Carlson does the same thing (at least on the Lex Friedman interview as I generally find him an insufferable blowhard) and it’s quite annoying.
astrange 3y ago
Outdated protectionism like the Jones Act. https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/jones-act-burden-america-can-no-longer-bear https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/jones-act-...
- anonymous-panda 3y ago
  For all the faults of the Jones Act, I don’t think that explains the challenges of US ship building. If anything, it keeps US ship building efforts alive when foreign ships would have killed it.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Not really. All the Jones act has done is make it impossibly expensive to ship things between US ports. It has reduced naval traffic in the US considerably which hurts American shipbuilders.
    - anonymous-panda 3y ago
      Conversely that naval traffic MUST be done on US-built ships with crews that no how to man them which is a national security thing. I don’t see how allowing foreign built ships ie foreign crews helps with that aspect. Consider that we’re trying to onshore industrial things precisely for that purpose now in preparation for a potential war with China over Taiwan. I also challenge that it’s also impossibly expensive because it that were the case things in Puerto Rico would cost much more whereas they’re a little bit cheaper than Miami. https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Puerto+Rico&city1=San+Juan&country2=United+States&city2=Miami%2C+FL https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou... That’s not to say that the Jones act should have reforms applied, particularly with respect to helping Puerto Rico compete more fairly, but I don’t think it’s clearly one of those totally evil regulations that’s hampering US creativity and ingenuity from flourishing.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        Is Puerto Rico getting its supplies from the USA or from foreign countries? If the latter, the Jones act doesn’t apply. This much more of a problem for Hawaii, since it is much farther away from foreign ports and shipping costs are much more substantial.
renewiltord 3y ago
https://apnews.com/article/us-army-ukraine-russia-ammunition-war-75a9ca2e3be09578c65f1198ba5b72e5 https://apnews.com/article/us-army-ukraine-russia-ammunition... Historical preservation means cannot upgrade production

Which regulations?

explaininjs 3y ago

Environmental ones, perhaps? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=335yX5kj7is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=335yX5kj7is

speedylight 3y ago
Environmental laws are necessary to make sure we’re not poisoning ourselves or the planet.
- newsclues 3y ago
  That doesn't mean the current laws are not contributing to a problem that is prolonging a war that kills people and has a very nasty environmental impact. Winning wars fast is good environmental policy. Just because environmental laws made aid to ensure humans to poison our planet, doesn't meant the current policy is perfect, effective, or the best policy possible.

roenxi 3y ago

Environmental, labour, safety and energy are the usual 4 horsemen that I have seen. Just listing a random point from my collection of squeaky-wheel arguments on the topic: * I frankly don't know how to make it a persuasive message, but my experience in English speaking countries is that it is generally illegal to make mistakes or skimp on quality. That means it is impossible for industries to learn how to do new things. Look at the treatment of Boeing after 2 airplane crashes for example and ask what that would mean for a new company attempting to learn how to operate in the space. With no room to fail, it is a challenge for new companies to succeed. There were even calls to nationalise them which is ... not likely but also not comforting as an investor. It is darn risky to put money into manufacturing spaces with attitudes like that, it is safer to go with cat picture delivery platforms. * The US has particulate air pollution that is half of South Korea's and a quarter of China. It is a pretty reasonable guess that air pollution would be mostly industrial production that the US would shut down for environmental concerns. * US labour laws are an impediment. That new fab plant that TSMC was trying to build in the US seemed to be falling over because it was illegal to use skilled, experienced labour. * The US is seeing declines in per-capita energy availability and flat actual production. That is almost certainly a policy choice linked to anti-fossil-fuel ideologies, Asia has been seeing seeing crazy growth. It is hard to do energy-intensive activities like manufacturing in an environment where securing energy is a battle. There have been something like 50 years of anti-industrial policy in the west. A lot of the capital was built in China/Asia. It should be a literal embarrassment that we're being outdone at capitalism by nominal communists and legitimate authoritarians.

pmontra 3y ago
Capitalism is not at odds with authoritarianism. They are orthogonal. The only thing capitalists must not do in those places is piss off the dear liders of their country.
- roenxi 3y ago
  Yeah. How could the Chinese out-capital the US if capitalism was at odds with authoritarianism? But unless it adopts some really stupid ideologies a liberal system should be able to produce more and better capitalists than an authoritarian one. Free markets breed capitalists like dropped donuts attract ants. It isn't like China is getting the best value out of their billion-odd people; the inefficiencies caused by over-centralisation there are still breathtaking and tragic.
anonymous-panda 3y ago
> Look at the treatment of Boeing after 2 airplane crashes for example Well, Boeing was taken to task not for trying to innovate and making mistakes but for lying (fraud) and regulatory capture of the FAA (something a smaller competitor can’t do and in fact likely prevents smaller competitors). As an investor, the former should make you wary and as a flier the latter should make you scared. > The US has particulate air pollution that is half of South Korea's and a quarter of China. It is a pretty reasonable guess that air pollution would be mostly industrial production that the US would shut down for environmental concerns. Considering the primary stated motivator by many industrial companies for outsourcing to China was labor costs and not environmental regulations, I wouldn’t be so confident in this claim. This is borne out by research which tries to compare environmental regulations across regulatory regimes: > In our newest research, we compared risk regulation in China and the United States, and we have also found a more complex pattern that does not support the longstanding conventional view of U.S. regulation being much more stringent than in China. https://www.theregreview.org/2021/12/20/xu-wiener-comparing-us-chinese-environmental-risk-regulation/ https://www.theregreview.org/2021/12/20/xu-wiener-comparing-... > * US labour laws are an impediment. That new fab plant that TSMC was trying to build in the US seemed to be falling over because it was illegal to use skilled, experienced labour. I don’t know what you’re referring to but generally the problems with such endeavors are that skilled work in a different cultural and regulatory environment is challenging and this applies to European companies trying to enter the US market and US companies trying to enter other markets for the first time too, especially when it comes to complex technical projects. Also, the primary labor laws that tend to be an impediment are things like worker safety and compensation. The latter is a bit less important for highly skilled labor but safety is certainly not. I think the bigger problem is trade arrangements that have long ignored these rather than estimating the cost worker safety regulations impose and taxing products from regimes that don’t have good regulations. > The US is seeing declines in per-capita energy availability and flat actual production. That is almost certainly a policy choice linked to anti-fossil-fuel ideologies, Asia has been seeing seeing crazy growth. It is hard to do energy-intensive activities like manufacturing in an environment where securing energy is a battle. That seems like a leap when China is installing a lot of nuclear and solar energy. Yes they’re also still building coal plants but that’s intended to be as a backstop for solar until they build enough nuclear capacity. > It should be a literal embarrassment that we're being outdone at capitalism by nominal communists China hasn’t really been a communist country in anything more than name for quite a while and is actually pretty capitalist despite their own claims to the contrary (they still like to pretend): https://www.cato.org/policy-report/january/february-2013/how-china-became-capitalist https://www.cato.org/policy-report/january/february-2013/how... You seem to like to state something that may be true but jump to a conclusion without any supporting evidence for making that claim. I’ve noticed Tucker Carlson does the same thing (at least on the Lex Friedman interview as I generally find him an insufferable blowhard) and it’s quite annoying.

astrange 3y ago

Outdated protectionism like the Jones Act. https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/jones-act-burden-america-can-no-longer-bear https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/jones-act-...

anonymous-panda 3y ago
For all the faults of the Jones Act, I don’t think that explains the challenges of US ship building. If anything, it keeps US ship building efforts alive when foreign ships would have killed it.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Not really. All the Jones act has done is make it impossibly expensive to ship things between US ports. It has reduced naval traffic in the US considerably which hurts American shipbuilders.
  - anonymous-panda 3y ago
    Conversely that naval traffic MUST be done on US-built ships with crews that no how to man them which is a national security thing. I don’t see how allowing foreign built ships ie foreign crews helps with that aspect. Consider that we’re trying to onshore industrial things precisely for that purpose now in preparation for a potential war with China over Taiwan. I also challenge that it’s also impossibly expensive because it that were the case things in Puerto Rico would cost much more whereas they’re a little bit cheaper than Miami. https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Puerto+Rico&city1=San+Juan&country2=United+States&city2=Miami%2C+FL https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou... That’s not to say that the Jones act should have reforms applied, particularly with respect to helping Puerto Rico compete more fairly, but I don’t think it’s clearly one of those totally evil regulations that’s hampering US creativity and ingenuity from flourishing.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Is Puerto Rico getting its supplies from the USA or from foreign countries? If the latter, the Jones act doesn’t apply. This much more of a problem for Hawaii, since it is much farther away from foreign ports and shipping costs are much more substantial.

renewiltord 3y ago

https://apnews.com/article/us-army-ukraine-russia-ammunition-war-75a9ca2e3be09578c65f1198ba5b72e5 https://apnews.com/article/us-army-ukraine-russia-ammunition... Historical preservation means cannot upgrade production