Really the way to do it, AFAIK (say, per How Asia Works), is to apply selective subsidies, not tariffs, and to subject the subsidized industries to substantial export discipline. That's what gets you South Korean world-beaters. Autarkic tariffs just get you Indian industry, where consumers have learned that the few goods marked "export quality" are superior.
And, I don't want to be partisan about this stuff, but, that's basically what "Bidenonics" was trying to do, in a small way: Subsidize a few industries like semiconductors and batteries and solar panels, that were deemed strategically important.
Whether the US was ever going to be as serious as South Korea or Japan about this remained to be seen. Frequently the subsidies seem to be handed out and then nothing happens (e.g., "Gigafactory" in Buffalo, NY).
> what Britain did was import massive amounts from India and made high value goods at home and provided high value services that couldn't be provided elsewhere
Does this story really describe a trade deficit? Trade is measured in units of currency, not in kilograms.
If I import a quantity of sugar from the West Indies for $1, turn it into rum, and export that rum for $10, then I have, net, produced $9 of exports.
This word "fascism" is unfortunate, because the symbolism of the fasces is actually good: We do all need to bundle ourselves together if we are either (a) to accomplish anything, or (b) to resist capital. The only question is whether all the many twigs have to be the same color.
The Left has spoken of "bundling" for many years now (of issues or complaints, or, looked at another way, of identity or pressure groups). That too is the idea of the fasces. The word "bundle" again suggests it.
I also note that there is a certain irony here, because, besides "fasces", we already have a succinct two-syllable word meaning "a bundle of twigs".
The CEO who "cuts" people at a company is like the Aztec priest who plunges the knife in atop the pyramid. The bloody spectacle is the point. It's as much about everyone who's watching as it is about the specific victim. It says, "I can do this to you. I can inflict pain without reprisal. Behold my power."
That's the whole point. Who is afraid of whom?
These people have the money. We depend on that money in order to live. They are reminding us of that fact. Now they demand obedience and harder work. 40 hours? Not enough. Elon sleeps at the office, why don't you? You have to be "super hardcore".
Partly, this is punishment for the challenge that was raised to CEO power from around 2016 to 2022. CEOs have been furious that they have felt fear of their workers. Now they want those workers to feel fear. In interviews, Andreesen has said almost exactly this, if not in quite so many words.
A similar theory is at the root of Fed policy, which hinges on the idea of a "wage price spiral". In their view, inflation is caused not by the accumulation of capital within a price-insensitive upper quantile, or by the constriction of economic chokepoints by consolidation, but by workers' ability to bargain for higher wages. The solution to inflation, they essentially come out and say, is to put workers in their place.
There is a united front here. It is about who fears whom, the end. It is about your emotional state. In a literal sense, it is terrorism.
So in that sense, yes, layoffs work. Are you financially independent? No? Are you afraid? Yes? Then they're working.
When today's children are old, "house" may well imply "billionaire" in many places. At 11% appreciation, it only takes 67 years to gain a factor of a thousand.
And, I don't want to be partisan about this stuff, but, that's basically what "Bidenonics" was trying to do, in a small way: Subsidize a few industries like semiconductors and batteries and solar panels, that were deemed strategically important.
Whether the US was ever going to be as serious as South Korea or Japan about this remained to be seen. Frequently the subsidies seem to be handed out and then nothing happens (e.g., "Gigafactory" in Buffalo, NY).
reply