Theme: Subsidy

  • ELECTRIC VEHICLES FROM CHINA AND USE OF TARIFFS TO DEFEND DOMESTIC INDUSTRIES? (

    ELECTRIC VEHICLES FROM CHINA AND USE OF TARIFFS TO DEFEND DOMESTIC INDUSTRIES?
    (RE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54hl57_M7vs @firstpost )

    Why The Tariffs?
    1) No one will trust the Chinese supply chain. Chinese strategy is ‘delay and deceive’. They use moral language to hid immoral ambitions.…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-13 22:23:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790145748270530593

  • ELECTRIC VEHICLES FROM CHINA AND USE OF TARIFFS TO DEFEND DOMESTIC INDUSTRIES? (

    ELECTRIC VEHICLES FROM CHINA AND USE OF TARIFFS TO DEFEND DOMESTIC INDUSTRIES?
    (RE: https://t.co/KkONn9ltoF @firstpost )

    Why The Tariffs?
    1) No one will trust the Chinese supply chain. Chinese strategy is ‘delay and deceive’. They use moral language to hid immoral ambitions. This strategy is as old as Sun Tzu. The Chinese NEVER have a moral ambition any more than the Russians or the Mullahs of Iran

    2) EV’s are a strategic industry and EV’s produce external strategic industries.

    3) But most importantly if the price of a good is lower because of lower labor costs (china) and government subsidy (china) then you are:
    … a) Exporting your labor and their income to another country;
    … b) Exporting capital to another country and not creating capital internally;
    … c) And/or depriving your population of skills both in the industry and in tangent industries.

    So when England sold it’s looms to Spain, and Spain to East Asia, this made sense. But the same is not true of technical skills, scientific research, and a skilled work force.

    So when the USA wanted to avoid another world war and create a world of free trade, it made sense to export the American economic advantages to developing countries and countries that needed reconstruction from the wars.

    However, the moment a group seeks to impose authoritarianism, to undermine the world order of free trade, and to seditiously undermine economies, there is no longer an advantage in importing cheaper goods for the population. (In economics this is called ‘accounting for both the seen and unseen costs’).

    This disadvantage to export of capital, income, labor, skill, technology, and scientific research is especially true in a place like America where the problem is more one of extraordinary wealth resulting in the vast majority of the country rising to exceed the level of their personal, financial, economic, and political incompetency (whole country peter principle), and then putting that wealth into poor choices in a population rolling in hyper-consumptive hedonism at the cost of their physical and mental health, and their social and political cohesion as a people.

    Cheers
    CD


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-13 22:23:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790145748014600192

  • That’s simply not true. yes there are 100M too many people in the USA for the co

    That’s simply not true. yes there are 100M too many people in the USA for the coming future economy, but that does not mean that health insurance, medicare, social security, and the military can be funded with a smaller population. So a transition would (will) be extremely painful and cause unrest and possible revolt. If instead we were to ‘exit’ the costly unwanted then yes it might still be possible.

    Reply addressees: @Slfdstrctshield


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-13 05:15:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789887195135848448

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789886127047905780

  • This doesn’t mean what you think it does. The baseline for survival has increase

    This doesn’t mean what you think it does. The baseline for survival has increased as much as has productivity. Ie: You can’t live on subsistence farming today. So I tend to interpret these claims as dishonest to ignorant, to conflict generating ideological fraud.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-26 03:51:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1783705482852528498

    Reply addressees: @HumanProgress @mattwridley

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1783398288592425055

  • RT @micsolana: I am in favor of reparations for students, in which schools are f

    RT @micsolana: I am in favor of reparations for students, in which schools are forced to pay back some significant portion of tuition for t…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-12 21:22:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778896607221604844

  • ARGUMENTS AGAINST UBI 1) Hostility between productive and unproductive segments

    ARGUMENTS AGAINST UBI
    1) Hostility between productive and unproductive segments of society. If productive people feel they are being excessively burdened to support others, social tensions could rise. Some might leave for countries without UBI. And the social cohesion risks exacerbating rather than ameliorating. (I would certainly leave the country and take my companies with me if it occurred.)

    2) Leisure activity justification for low income people on the dole mean they will not gain work experience and worse, they will justify it by creating even more ‘status’ signals promoting idleness and attention seeking instead, continuing the destruction of the (white) lower classes we have seen due to ‘ghetto’ culture expansion.

    3) The same problem with minimum wage: the loss of incentive to expand ability and responsiblity and income creating the low income trap. This will be worse as the economy continues to lose competitiveness only made possible by our control of world reserve currency and military capacity to police world free trade. THe USA must withdraw from policing world trade and is doing so. The USA is using economic warfare to constrain hostile competitors. But these strategies will protect American economic advantage, especially reserve currency status, and military dominance only for a short period of time. We are currently hoping that our economic warfare will collapse the four remaining agrarian empires and complete the postwar strategy of creating a planet of nation states and relatively free trade. If this strategy fails, americans will rapidly become as poor as europeans. And europeans no longer can export defense, political,and trade costs to the USA.

    4) Immigration incentives will vastly accelerate just when the present wave of automation drives more people out of the workforce expanding the lower middle and upper proletarian classes that had a temporary advantage between the rise of the industrial revolution, the postwar economic advantage, the computer revolution, and the expansion of those many white collar jobs is just about to evaporate (which is not considered in the studies of workforce participation collapse that are currently published.)

    5) Asymmetric reproduction incentives – “white,asian, ashkenazi” cultures require high investment parenting. Cities suppress reproduction but largely for those who rely on high invsetment parenting. Convrersely both factors accelerate reproduction of lower class low investment parenting populations, which will only accelerate under UBI.

    6) Estimates of UBI’s inflationary impact vary, but most suggest it would be substantial, especially for housing and other inelastic goods. Rents and home prices would likely absorb much of the UBI. Some estimates suggest additional inflation could be 3-5% or more – and inflation that negates much of UBI’s benefit. In effect, UBI would function as a massive upward redistribution of wealth.

    7) Survival UBI estimates range from around $12k to $20k per person annually in the US. At $12k for 330M people, that’s ~$4T per year, or around 20% of GDP – doubling total tax revenue from a much smaller taxable base concentrating taxes already carried by the people most likely and able to flee the country. It would profoundly distort labor markets, business incentives, and more in ways that are concerning and difficult to predict. UBI this large would be massively disruptive economically.

    8) Estimates of workforce dropout from UBI range from 5% to 30% depending on the study & amount. A 20% reduction in labor participation is likely under a full-scale UBI. This would significantly reduce productivity & economic output. The labor force participation rate is already only 61%. The aging of the population over the next decades will make it worse. The decline in IQ given the asymmetry of reproduction between races and classes will amplify the shortage of IQ in the USA only sustaining by immigration from East Asia, Europe, and India’s upper castes, which would come to an end as competitiveness declined. This means a permanent loss of economic advantage and eventually the dollar to countries with larger populations with higher IQ ratios.

    9) Crime and social dysfunction from people no longer working in formal jobs is another serious concern with UBI. Rates of substance abuse, mental health issues, domestic violence, and crime – all idle hands make ill and crime will rise with unemployment. Even with some offsetting positive UBI effects, idle time often brews problems. Funding productive work (as in #5) and social programs would likely do more to fight crime than UBI.

    INSTEAD:
    10) Instead, paying people for productive work as under the WPA an to improve public goods would be much better than pure UBI. Infrastructure, education, healthcare, community programs, etc. are all chronically underfunded and could benefit enormously from some of the funds and labor that a UBI would absorb unproductively. The WPA model of creating socially valuable employment is promising.

    That’s the tip of the iceberg.

    Reply addressees: @josh61597760 @GiwdulBielsira @FerghaneA @PLIB_fr @ViandeTiede666 @Cobra_FX_ @_ThDa @PBlanrue @arthurhomines @NIMH_Rage @RageCultureMag @Doomit_Doomit @PaduStream @Etienne_Chouard @ObjectivismeFR @cercle_cobalt @Bunker_D_ @JRochedy @MonsieurPhi @liberteadoree @fare @VillonAdam @whatifalthist


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-12 19:33:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778869085427666944

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778861412435075511

  • Disagreement is not an argument. I agree on the desirability of it and the utili

    Disagreement is not an argument.
    I agree on the desirability of it and the utility of limiting underclass fertility. But as I’ve said, UBI is economically impossible. There simply isn’t enough tax possible to accomplish it. And attempting it would cause the same flight we’ve…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-10 11:56:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778029359724458308

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778027229223764076

  • Nope. And VAT is the most destructive tax of all and hampers all production dist

    Nope. And VAT is the most destructive tax of all and hampers all production distribution and consumption.
    It can’t happen. Even if it did all that would occur is mortgage rates and housing rent would increase to absorb it.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-10 11:37:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778024576867250305

    Reply addressees: @arqiduka @HarmfulOpinion @ConceptualJames @JonMunitz

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778022499349115365

  • UBI isn’t possible

    UBI isn’t possible.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-10 11:22:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778020811242152141

    Reply addressees: @arqiduka @HarmfulOpinion @ConceptualJames @JonMunitz

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777946372915995098

  • RT @Sargon_of_Akkad: If benefits and free healthcare were restricted to the nati

    RT @Sargon_of_Akkad: If benefits and free healthcare were restricted to the native-born, the problems of immigration would evaporate almost…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-09 08:45:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777618744283476276