3 ms·

I meant "subsidy" in a more general sense. All goods will be more expensive. More people will be in poverty Imagine how much more expensive everything would be

I meant "subsidy" in a more general sense. All goods will be more expensive. More people will be in poverty Imagine how much more expensive everything would be, and now imagine the cumulative amount of money that represents. Money that could be used to fund education or improve people's lives, or even build armaments if you really are worried about the commies. You're in effect paying an huge "tax"/premium indefinitely for a threat that's very theoretical. In so doing youre seriously slowing down the rate of progress and prosperity But that goes a bit away from the original point. That even if you want to have a self reliant north Korean model for the economy, chips are not a sensible place to start. You'd probably want your local hospital to be able to run without anything made in China. Going back to 22nm (circa 2014 tech) would be a minor annoyance.

_heimdall 3y ago
Subsidies and tariffs have very specific meanings. They get at the same goal of increasing domestic production, but one increases government spending while the other increases government revenue through an import tax. Ultimately the domestic consumer pays either through taxes or increased prices, but they are very different mechanisms. Its overly simplistic to assume that a subsidy will increase prices and harm the economy. We have been subsidizing corn for decades and it has kept prices artificially low. Prices for corn and downstream products like beef are artificially low specifically because of federal subsidies. If a subsidy creates domestic jobs it could have a net benefit. The ultimate question is what metrics are impacted and at what rate. If domestic jobs are created fast enough to increase demand for employees, wages could rise faster than prices. I have no idea what the end result would be, but that's ultimately my point. Economic models are just that, models. Models are based on analysis of past events and assumptions if the future. We don't know what we don't know, and we often don't recognize how inaccurate models are when we simplify them down to a handful of measurements. To your original point, hospitals do seem reasonable to focus on with regards to stability through simplified supply chains. Chips may help there, our hospitals are dependent on a huge amount of tech today. Paper, silicon, and metal products would also likely be high on the list as they are often treated as consumables - the consumable nature of those products may make them more important than chips.
- contrarian1234 3y ago
  I mean that just goes against the very basics of economics.. Adam Smith, comparative advantage - and goes against the failed history of protectionist policies. You're basically advocating a version of mercantilist theory in the 21st century.. it's incredible anachronistic. But it's hard to argue when you're dismissive of all models But I'm glad you see that chips are not really the top priority if this was really an issue of national safety. So one then has to wonder what are the real drivers of these jingoistic policies
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    I may have dove down to many rabbit holes there, sorry if I did. To wind it back a bit, are you disagreeing that with the idea that subsidies are meant to reduce consumer prices and tariffs are meant to increase prices on imported goods? Or are you disagreeing with my argument that economics isn't that simply and pulling one lever can have multiple impacts that together may move prices in an unexpected way?
    - contrarian1234 3y ago
      the first point is semantic, but sure. In effect a tariff functions as a subsidy for domestic companies. If it's a net income or expense is kind of irrelevant and matter of taxation or putting the expense on consumers... To the second point... it's so vague to be meaningless. What you're advocating is basically mercantilism - which is widely seen as ineffective and counterproductive since.. the 19th century. "unexpected ways“ .. is it like the law of gravity and always going to hold? Probably not. But when you are talking about blocking international trade across whole sectors of the economy then it seems like a valid simplification. If you want to argue mercantilism is going to be a net benefit to the domestic economy then the onus is on the advocate of the outdated theory. All past historic experience points to the opposite and to the development of a stagnant backwards economy
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        Mercantilism is a top-down approach, I was never promoting that. My earlier comments specifically called out what may be possible if consumers prioritized domestic products, the government only came into the conversation when you raised concerns over subsidies. With regards to subsidies and tariffs I disagree the distinction is semantic and unimportant, though it likely is irrelevant here since I started with the concept of a change in demand at the consumer level.

_heimdall 3y ago

Subsidies and tariffs have very specific meanings. They get at the same goal of increasing domestic production, but one increases government spending while the other increases government revenue through an import tax. Ultimately the domestic consumer pays either through taxes or increased prices, but they are very different mechanisms. Its overly simplistic to assume that a subsidy will increase prices and harm the economy. We have been subsidizing corn for decades and it has kept prices artificially low. Prices for corn and downstream products like beef are artificially low specifically because of federal subsidies. If a subsidy creates domestic jobs it could have a net benefit. The ultimate question is what metrics are impacted and at what rate. If domestic jobs are created fast enough to increase demand for employees, wages could rise faster than prices. I have no idea what the end result would be, but that's ultimately my point. Economic models are just that, models. Models are based on analysis of past events and assumptions if the future. We don't know what we don't know, and we often don't recognize how inaccurate models are when we simplify them down to a handful of measurements. To your original point, hospitals do seem reasonable to focus on with regards to stability through simplified supply chains. Chips may help there, our hospitals are dependent on a huge amount of tech today. Paper, silicon, and metal products would also likely be high on the list as they are often treated as consumables - the consumable nature of those products may make them more important than chips.

contrarian1234 3y ago
I mean that just goes against the very basics of economics.. Adam Smith, comparative advantage - and goes against the failed history of protectionist policies. You're basically advocating a version of mercantilist theory in the 21st century.. it's incredible anachronistic. But it's hard to argue when you're dismissive of all models But I'm glad you see that chips are not really the top priority if this was really an issue of national safety. So one then has to wonder what are the real drivers of these jingoistic policies
- _heimdall 3y ago
  I may have dove down to many rabbit holes there, sorry if I did. To wind it back a bit, are you disagreeing that with the idea that subsidies are meant to reduce consumer prices and tariffs are meant to increase prices on imported goods? Or are you disagreeing with my argument that economics isn't that simply and pulling one lever can have multiple impacts that together may move prices in an unexpected way?
  - contrarian1234 3y ago
    the first point is semantic, but sure. In effect a tariff functions as a subsidy for domestic companies. If it's a net income or expense is kind of irrelevant and matter of taxation or putting the expense on consumers... To the second point... it's so vague to be meaningless. What you're advocating is basically mercantilism - which is widely seen as ineffective and counterproductive since.. the 19th century. "unexpected ways“ .. is it like the law of gravity and always going to hold? Probably not. But when you are talking about blocking international trade across whole sectors of the economy then it seems like a valid simplification. If you want to argue mercantilism is going to be a net benefit to the domestic economy then the onus is on the advocate of the outdated theory. All past historic experience points to the opposite and to the development of a stagnant backwards economy
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      Mercantilism is a top-down approach, I was never promoting that. My earlier comments specifically called out what may be possible if consumers prioritized domestic products, the government only came into the conversation when you raised concerns over subsidies. With regards to subsidies and tariffs I disagree the distinction is semantic and unimportant, though it likely is irrelevant here since I started with the concept of a change in demand at the consumer level.