What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FlagDUDE08 said:
Even if you were to take the single plant lobbyists to the back room, I still question having enough energy to power the heavily dense areas. Obviously accounting for delivery loss will be a wash in the trade-off. I have no issues with interdependency over a central system, but we must unfortunately deal with the golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
Click to expand...

I think in 50 years we'll have unlimited free energy and insanely expensive, scarce water. The exact opposite of most of our history.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FlagDUDE08 said:
Good to see you're quite enlightened today. :D

#1 isn't going to happen overnight, if at all. Even if you were to take every single oil lobbyist to the back room, your point of infrastructure not being there, coupled with the number of vehicles in this country using gasoline that would have to switch over, as well as the amount of energy produced by NG vs. oil, are going to be your challenges.

You can go a long way towards #2 by answering one simple question: What caused the miners and manufacturers to shut down in the first place? The more specific you are with this answer, the longer you'll go towards finding a solution on this one.

#3: See #1, especially volume of energy production, even if you were to assume ideal weather conditions. You and I both know that rural areas might have a shot at this (if we were to take the grid lobbyists to the back room), but you're not going to have the same sort of luck when you get to much more dense areas.
Click to expand...

For #1, I'd start with a 5 year phase in for trucks and busses. Busses should be easier as lots of them are municipal (aka Government) owned. Cars are a tougher nut to crack and one I'd leave aside for right now. My thoughts on trucks and busses is that they don't fill up at the neighborhood station. They either fill up on the interstate or the municipal lot. While this needs verfication, oil dude T Boone Pickens estimated just doing this would eliminate the need for overseas oil. Big Oil should be thrilled to trade off the US market for the world market so I imagine they'd be on board, while enviros should love the cleaner energy committment. An odd pairing, but one needed to get through Congress.

#2 Slave labor and illegal dumping are the main causes of no steel industry. Enforce anti-dumping standards and compete on cost via tax/subsidies because slave wages are illegal in the US. I'm assuming you're also concerned about environmental regulations, which is why my re-started industry would go in run down sh !tty places where environment is already ruined. In fact, this SHOULD be near major cities (Detroit, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, etc). Really, if you put a nuclear power plant and a steel mill in the middle of Detroit, what exactly are you ruining???

#3 Yes all of this is dependent on production which seems to be keeping pace.

So, in all of this I'm not necessarily seeking to benefit places, generally cities, which are already doing well. SF, Boston, NY, DC, Austin, Seattle, etc. Its more tailored in some respects to the places that need the jobs.
 
Last edited:
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Is steel production even labor intensive anymore? Seems like an ideal industry for automation. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the slaves laboring in Asian steel mills are robots.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Kepler said:
Is steel production even labor intensive anymore? Seems like an ideal industry for automation. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the slaves laboring in Asian steel mills are robots.
Click to expand...

And how are you going to get the basic materials?
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Kepler said:
Is steel production even labor intensive anymore? Seems like an ideal industry for automation. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the slaves laboring in Asian steel mills are robots.
Click to expand...

For this reason I would not assume all jobs come back. From what I read there were 1M steel workers 40 years ago and there are 100K as of 10 years ago. We should be able to boost that by several hundred thousand if we are to be capable of meeting our own needs.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Rover said:
For this reason I would not assume all jobs come back. From what I read there were 1M steel workers 40 years ago and there are 100K as of 10 years ago. We should be able to boost that by several hundred thousand if we are to be capable of meeting our own needs.
Click to expand...

I thought that was the purpose of the 2005(?) steel tarriffs that Bush signed into law. China had the retail price of steel down around $0.49/lb, and immediately the prices doubled. The gap was designed to make American steel competitive with Chinese steel. I can't imagine it helped do anything more than add 100K total jobs as the tarriff can't impact foreign prices. In fact, it would probably depress international prices as demand and quantity of demand in the US both shifted.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

St. Clown said:
I thought that was the purpose of the 2005(?) steel tarriffs that Bush signed into law. China had the retail price of steel down around $0.49/lb, and immediately the prices doubled. The gap was designed to make American steel competitive with Chinese steel. I can't imagine it helped do anything more than add 100K total jobs as the tarriff can't impact foreign prices. In fact, it would probably depress international prices as demand and quantity of demand in the US both shifted.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking tariffs. I'm taking tax breaks. Tariffs raise the price. Subsidies cut it. Big difference/
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Rover said:
I'm not talking tariffs. I'm taking tax breaks. Tariffs raise the price. Subsidies cut it. Big difference/
Click to expand...

I believe the ultimate goal for our ideas is to make the tax code easier, not more complicated.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Rover said:
I'm not talking tariffs. I'm taking tax breaks. Tariffs raise the price. Subsidies cut it. Big difference/
Click to expand...

Yeah, one's taking money from people who make a purchase and the other's giving their money away to certain people. Both of them obscure the market, though in very different manners. I understand the big difference quite well.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

St. Clown said:
Yeah, one's taking money from people who make a purchase and the other's giving their money away to certain people. Both of them obscure the market, though in very different manners. I understand the big difference quite well.
Click to expand...

The market is already obscured by having to get a vital product from a hostile country employing slave labor. If the market's already broken, why should we play by rules that other countries have long since abandoned?

However, back to the point I'm not trying to upset the global market. I doubt having the US with the capacity to supply its own steel needs (but no subsidies beyond that point) is going to disrupt things all that much.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Rover said:
The market is already obscured by having to get a vital product from a hostile country employing slave labor. If the market's already broken, why should we play by rules that other countries have long since abandoned?

However, back to the point I'm not trying to upset the global market. I doubt having the US with the capacity to supply its own steel needs (but no subsidies beyond that point) is going to disrupt things all that much.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm just shocked that you're willing to go after enviro-nazi policies and allow for mining and steel manufacturing in parts of the country already established as such. You feeling OK?
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FlagDUDE08 said:
Hey, I'm just shocked that you're willing to go after enviro-nazi policies and allow for mining and steel manufacturing in parts of the country already established as such. You feeling OK?
Click to expand...

As I've said before, you ain't gonna beautify Detroit anytime soon. Might as well put stuff there that can't make the situation too much worse! Same goes for New Jersey, most of Ohio, Gary Indiana, etc etc.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Rover said:
As I've said before, you ain't gonna beautify Detroit anytime soon. Might as well put stuff there that can't make the situation too much worse! Same goes for New Jersey, most of Ohio, Gary Indiana, etc etc.
Click to expand...

Don't be so sure. Pittsburgh is beautiful now; when I was there in the 70s it looked as bad as any dead rust belt city.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Kepler said:
Don't be so sure. Pittsburgh is beautiful now; when I was there in the 70s it looked as bad as any dead rust belt city.
Click to expand...


Pittsburgh sucks. ;) I was forced to go there several times over the last few years and I don't care what its done compared to the 70's but if I never go there again it'll be too soon.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

joecct said:
$750,000 speaking fees as of 1/21/17. He wants to outpoint Bill.

WaPo is ganging up. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...4caf30-f814-11e4-9030-b4732caefe81_story.html
Click to expand...

Obama's criticisms of Warren are interesting in that in reading the two of them I come to the opposite conclusion: he is not offering anything of substance, while she has both made her case and also given him the opportunity of making his by declassifying the deal's terms and laying it out in the light of day.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I think this will be the last trade deal pushed by a Democrat. While I don't know all the intricacies of this particular deal, it seems by going to Nike Obama is making the case that this deal will get American consumers cheaper products. That is no longer a valid tradeoff for losing American jobs. Crappy Mao-Mart products are already cheap enough. Saving another 10 cents on them by making it easier to use Vietnamese slave laborers instead of Chinese ones is a dead argument.

With all of these trade deals, I'd really like to see an analysis of how many jobs and which jobs are supposedly being created. Until that comes I'm behind Warren in opposing this deal. You just can't take on faith that this will all work out, especially when dealing with countries with no wage standards (as opposed to say and EU trade pace which I could live with more easily).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top