Hacker News Reader

Comment by Animats | Hacker News Reader

Those numbers are worse than I thought they were. I thought US production had recovered to 2008 levels. This isn't good, and it's really important.

To some extent, Trump was elected to fix this, but so far, no initiatives have appeared which help US manufacturing. How much protectionism the US should have is a real question. China has a considerable amount, and is trying to become an autarky, not dependent of the rest of the world. That's been quite successful in the Internet sector. China can probably do it; they're big enough.

View on HN

Well, are the USA really not an autarky Internet wise ? Of course it's theoretically open to other countries services but let the proof be in the pudding: which are the important services or sites used in the US and not made in USA ? (just a thinking experiment, of course I remember there are reasons. There may also be reasons for Chinese)

Weird; I had the opposite reaction. The data in the charts seemed soothing to me. I thought manufacturing had been crushed by double digit percentages, even today. It's rebounding significantly and while the author asserts it is a plateau, I think it's far too soon to make that call.

I don't disagree with the author's main points about manufacturing and the economy in general; I just don't see the dire situation in the data.

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/tr...

[1] http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/02/trump-to-sign-repeal-of-ob...

[2]http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/319488-trump-si...

[3] https://taxfoundation.org/faqs-border-adjustment/

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.

Electricity in the US is already cheaper than China thanks to renewables and natural gas.

You're really reaching there.

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.

If the manufacturing jobs come back, they're bringing developing-nation-style quality of life with them. POTUS can't do anything other than protectionism, and that will only stave off disaster, while driving quality to the floor.

2008 was the height of a debt-fuelled bubble - I wouldn't take it as the starting point for long-term growth trends in industrial output.

Trump duped people into thinking he gave a shit about this. Unfortunately -- but also predictably -- he will do absolutely nothing to fix it before his inevitable removal from office.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com