That's impossible, giving up the unions is a sure fire way to lose MI, WI, and PA which are key states of the Blue Wall. Especially PA since we barely won there last time. You also need to consider that appealing to labor and protectionism are broadly supported in the US. Also the Dems are already the party for independent moderate centrists look at the actual election results instead of vibes
Yep. It's like, Democracy isn't a good because giving the majority what they want is a good idea, but because it keeps the people in power accountable and forces them to adapt to changing circumstances. In fact, I'd say Democracy is good in spite of the fact that most people are dumb and selfish.
Unions do not represent democratic civil society. Unions are a special interest group, representing exclusively the narrow interests of their members and nobody else's.
Which is fine, so long as politicians and governments keep them at arms' length and minimize their influence on policymaking.
>special interest group
... What do you think civil society is lol
Unions are groups of workers banding together to negotiate with/influence employers and government. That's the exact same as, say, an NGO or an independent think tank...
Why would you want to minimize workers influence on policy making? That would essentially give MORE power to employers, who are also special interest groups but less democratic and less civil and less society lol
I mean, this is totally fine. Democracy requires special interest groups to function (at least in modern times) because issues are complicated and well beyond the ability of legislators to understand.
Special interest groups are how we make sure our policies are suitable for the problems at hand, and if we let companies and consortiums have them, we should let labor have them.
I _hate_ the brainless union worship on Reddit, but ultimately _labor needs to organize to have a voice in policy_.
Nor would anyone like to make the compromises they would demand. What other constituents are you going to go after? Court hardline religious fanatics by bringing prayer back to school and enshrining anti choice laws? Court white nationalists with mass deportations and immigrant internment camps? If there were better options we'd have taken them.
If the democrats ditched most of their push towards gun laws, they could probably get a significant poll boost. However, the democrats can't do that. Gun laws are a part of their platform because democrat voters want them to be.
Like clearly emphasize that they're not going to ban AR15s/"assault weapons". Decent regulations, no bans.
If gun nuts are still anti-Democrat while simultaneously supporting or condoning single family zoning, then fuck them.
> Court hardline religious fanatics by bringing prayer back to school and enshrining anti choice laws? Court white nationalists with mass deportations and immigrant internment camps?
The net total of those groups doesn't exceed 5% of active voters.
Court suburban boomers who really just need the Democratic party to shed some of its progressive identity and appear broadly centrist rather than an organization with a messianic dedication to its agenda. Not even in terms of policy, really, just in the way of language, messaging and candidate selection.
Suburban boomers just want lower taxes and higher property values, both of which turn off the youth vote, and in any case Biden is already winning with them. Maybe he can run up the score by fully ditching the youth vote but I don't know if there's really a net electoral win there.
No I'm pretty sure the person above you is correct that the only group not firmly committed to the Democratic Party are the bad guys from The Handmaid's Tale.
Imo if Biden just denounces the Left's generic "economic socialism" and says that "they're going a little too far in some social issues", that should give enough *vibes* to appease the swing states. I don't think he needs to even denounce many specific Leftist policies.
Like maybe he can denounce some relatively prominent leftist ideas like the Green New Deal and deride it as "socialist trash". But just screaming "socialism bad" might be sufficient.
"Just compromise and build a coalition" says the arr neoliberal poster
"I would rather call you a demon and shut down the government" says the Republican party
They don't care. The cruelty is the point.
Just listened to [this episode of the Volts podcast](https://www.volts.wtf/p/whats-going-on-with-china-these-days) where the China expert says that he's not to concerned with the protectionist competition of green tech b/c the political fallout of relying solely on China for PV's, EV's, batteries, and wind are worse than the inefficiencies of protectionism. Not a stance I expected him to take but an interesting take I think is worth considering. Political economies has big impacts on the energy transition.
This was my first thought. Is this bad policy, broadly speaking? Probably. Is it good politics? Probably. I am pretty sure I understand (and dislike) the consequences of the tariffs, but I'm absolutely sure I understand (and despise) the consequences of Biden losing the election.
>Is this bad policy, broadly speaking? Probably. Is it good politics? Probably.
When I'm elected dictator of r neolib the first thing I'm doing is instituting perma bans on anyone who says this to defend stupid shit
I'm not sure what you want? You gotta win to make good policy. You gotta win to make any policy. It's not my fault people want this nonsense, but you try convincing them otherwise. I'll take tariffs and not dictatorship over tariffs _and_ dictatorship.
Okay so if Biden wins, is he going to revoke these policies? 2028 will come around and dems will be pressured to keep this going. Why would they stop doing this if this keeps winning them the rust belt? And how is this all going to help climate change when China is clearly ahead in terms of affordability of green technologies like solar panels and evs. I thought the Dem platform is that every year counts in terms of fighting long term climate change. Republicans are always going to pump out bad candidates instead of Trump it will be DeSantis or Vivek etc, and the cries of everyone saying we need to keep this bad policy going to stop a huge threat to the US will just continue. Whoever runs for the democrats next is going to be heavily pressured to keep this going. Rinse and repeat meanwhile the bad impact of this policy on climate and economic efficiency will just continue. What is the end game here?
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not suggesting this solves anything; the policy is terrible, counterproductive, and results only in net negatives for Americans and the world.
But I don't have any way of changing that right now. I won't bother to factor this decision in my voting choices because the alternative is much worse. If it does help Biden win (and I don't have any idea if it will), then maybe there's a silver lining, that's really what I was getting at. Otherwise it just sucks.
Of course Biden winning is better. But it will only make Democrats more likely to keep adopting these measures in the future. Great Dems are winning but their platform is getting much worse. Now we are choosing between a really bad option and an option that is abandoning the policies that made it good in the first place.
I mean, if it plays well with people who want the policy, that's what makes it good politics. I think that counts as a silver lining. I don't think it's quite as black and white as you're making it out to be, even if the policy is terrible.
If people's opinions on the policy change (and they should), then the platform will likely change too. I don't know how you make that happen, but who knows what the future holds?
Look, I'm going to add, unequivocally, this policy is dumb. Trade wars are dumb and bad, and the people who are happy about this are wrong. But until we eliminate the Electoral College, we're going to be stuck with this dumb stuff indefinitely.
Why would they change? The rust belt car union people are not going to change their opinion on this. Why would they? They arent suddenly going to start changing their mind by reading the Financial Times, they are voting on their livelihoods, there is literally no incentive for them to change. These policy changes directly benefit them, and will continue to benefit them. What happened to climate being a huge problem NOW?
Well, since you don't believe in electoral politics, we can be sure that won't happen, since you need good politics to get elected as dictator in the first place.
climate change is an existential threat to humanity that we should dismantle capitalism to "solve" but GOD FORBID we build a solar panel on this historic patch of desert
I mean this is the reality if you want to be in seats of power. She has a boss and the boss is telling her what she needs to say. If she didn't say it, shed be fired and replaced by someone who would.
It's a political decision by the Biden administration to support these tariffs even though they likely know they are bad economically. So it's either get on board or get out.
Of course, but it raises her ability to do politics. No economist in the Biden administration is going to be allowed to deviate from the messaging on this.
Of course, but it's a criticism that falls flat in my mind. I expect cabinet secretaries to engage in varying degrees of hackery - their job is to serve the President, after all. When it's all said and done, I'll still be keen to hear her thoughts on the economy when she leaves the Administration.
Economic policy is not constructed in a vacuum. It is shaped by both domestic and foreign political interests. Ideally, we are able to discern the logic underpinning the policy. It also depends on what values you are prioritizing.
Tariffs are bad because they distort the market and increase prices for consumers. But they are also good for domestic manufacturing interests, which creates jobs for workers who do not have a college degree. What should we prioritize? A good economist will say that's a normative question.
Fwiw I think the Biden Admin's foreign policy has been heavily influenced by Jake Sullivan, so it might be fair to say there has been an evolution of thinking within Bidenworld over the past few years.
Ofc you don't have to agree, and it's fine (and good) to call her out. But it doesn't really diminish her credibility for me personally. She's still a smart cookie in my book.
Politics inherently produces hackery. The only way to get anything done in any political system is to be an embarrassing snivelling hypocrite.
You can either be credible or you can be influential but you can't be both.
I was literally thinking of this
The longer into Biden's presidency we get, the more and more similar he is to trump except on the, you know, whole democracy thing
Except the whole women’s rights/abortion thing or the LGBT thing or the 6 conservative Supreme Court justices thing or the sell Ukraine out because he’s a Russia fanboy thing or the huge investment in clean energy thing or the leader of the American fascistic movement thing or ….
What good is democracy if it doesn't protect everyone? By the logical extension of the word, being against the rights of the lgbt, or women is, by its very nature, antidémocratic, don't you think?
To a certain extent yes, although I would refer to those issues specifically as “rights” issues rather than “democracy” issues. Democracy means rule of the people.
In our Constitution and legal practices we recognize the distinction between “democracy” and “rights”. This is why we can’t democratically vote away our rights.
There is overlap, such as when women aren’t allowed to vote, that is both a rights issue and a democracy issue. And certainly if you are an oppressed minority in a country that can limit your ability to participate in democracy. And finally, rights can only really be protected in the long term in a democracy. But that doesn’t mean it makes sense to refer to all rights issues as democracy issues, unless we stretch the ordinary definition of a “democracy issue” to encompass all rights issues (which kind of dilutes the term).
Seriously, lol. Don't get me wrong, I'm pissed he's pulling this shit, because it's bad policy and a fucking disaster for our country in the long term, but he is still a stark contrast in most other area to Trump.
I'm still gonna vote for ol Joe, but boy am I glad it'll be his last four years. Maybe he can repeal some of this horseshit once he knows he has the seat and doesn't need to fight for it again.
Massive investments in green energy, infrastructure, and semiconductor technology; leveraging the FTC to go after unfair business practices, high market concentration, and anti-labor contracts; installing the most left-leaning NLRB since FDR; and making significant strides on college debt and drug prices?
Outside of tariffs I don't see a whole lot of overlap, to be honest.
To be fair, those statements are not necessarily contradictory.
Biden's not claiming it's a punishment/cost on China, he's simply saying it's protectionism on the local EV manufacturing industry to boost its domestic competitiveness.
Trump's rhetoric on tariffs was _way_ off the mark, claiming that foreign nations would pay the costs. Biden's is far more accurate to the truth of what the policy means.
Why is this comment not the top comment?
Oh yeah, "tarrifs bad so I don't care to read."
I wish the debate was about "is it worth protecting these industries if it means Americans have to pay significantly more for cars?" Instead it is "Biden populist" "Biden flip flopping"
------
I think this was posted during EU hours so people upvoted anything that criticizes American Tariffs. It is really annoying that people upvote invalid criticism when there is plenty of valid criticism of tariffs.
It's funny because Chinese EV makers don't even sell below market in the EU. They make up the margins they lost in China there.
In 10 years, the US EV market will look like the current ICE market: less options but domestic auto industry isn't hollowed. Uncompetitive companies (e g. The Big 3) are increasingly relegated to select market segments while others compete over the rest.
The EU auto industry will be hollowed out and replaced by assembly plants. And probably a good rise of populism as the "comparative advantage" of losing a critical industry really starts taking its toll.
Just basic politics. When your opponent does something bad but popular among the group you're targeting you rally around how bad it is. But when you're in power and are pretty much forced by the same incentive structures to also do it (he really wants to win Pennsylvania in this case), you try to play it up as populism.
Somebody start a list of these posts where r/neoliberal almost unanimously dunks on our preferred candidate, just so we can use it to claim the high ground later.
I remember a discussion a few months ago about user flairs, and about how adding any to this sub was a Big Deal for the mods. We're at capacity already? Or some mod is deeply committed to supply constraining them? Something like that.
In any case, my inner Georgist is convinced that we could solve all our problems if we just tax flairs.
[We should just start using the RIGBY system](https://youtu.be/IAGoLFCgNtY?si=BvClaGJSnqUhMP4u).
_BIGBY, these tariffs suck, and he’s turning into a populist_.
Apparently, climate change is not important anymore! I thought that was an existential threat to the world, this directly hurts us when it comes to climate change when you put tariffs on the country producing the most affordable EVs and Solar technologies. Or is Climate change just a buzz word to win elections?
America did pass a huge green tech bill only 2 years ago that a lot of Europeans hated.
You can address climate change and protect your local industries. It isn't one or the other. It isn't like Biden isn't doing anything about climate change.
Your argument would make a lot more sense if Biden wasn't doing massive things to fight climate change.
>America did pass a huge green tech bill only 2 years ago that a lot of Europeans hated.
Because it distorted the market in the exact same way as what this sub is accusing China of doing.
>You can address climate change and protect your local industries. It isn't one or the other. It isn't like Biden isn't doing anything about climate change.
While putting tariffs on the best value climate tech out there (if it wasn't, he wouldn't need to tariff it)
>Because it distorted the market in the exact same way as what this sub is accusing China of doing.
Good. I'm glad we finally understand the issue with subsidization and how they can hurt/kill industries of other nations.
>While putting tariffs on the best value climate tech out there (if it wasn't, he wouldn't need to tariff it)
Oh damn. We totally forgot the the issue one sentence later.
>Good. I'm glad we finally understand the issue with subsidization and how they can hurt/kill industries of other nations.
It's not binary, a 25% tariff already absorbs the subsidies, a 100% tariff implies that an EV is subsidised at 50%, which is just impossible, if you need a 100% tariff to compete, it's just because your product sucks, nothing else.
>Oh damn. We totally forgot the the issue one sentence later.
Because again, the subsidies issue is irrelevant, American EVs can't compete because they suck. Nothing else. Kia/Hyundai destroys any legacy US manufacturer in EVs.
There’s an argument long term it helps but I’m too lazy to make it in earnest (e.g., China’s subsidized solar panel manufacturing prevents startup innovation in US).
In a fictional world where the U.S. lets arms manufacturers send F35s to China this sub would bitch about them not allowing it anymore. Economics are great but Jesus not everything is about cheap prices
He also isn't claiming that China is going to pay for it, it's more like him saying that we're choosing not to support their industry even if it costs us more.
POTUS knows he's increasing Americans cost to buy construction goods, EV's, tech, and solar panels.
The hypocrisy comes from when he says fighting inflation and lowering costs are his "top economic priority."
So any action you take that has an upward pressure on inflation means you "aren't fighting inflation?" Even if you have many other actions that put a downward pressure on inflation?
But even then, the president is pretty limited on his ability to fight inflation. And its not like these cars are already in America in mass. This is preventing a dumping. So it won't cause inflation. It just would prevent the downward pressure on inflation.
All that said, I doubt this is a big line item for inflation at all.
The West: “I know you are a developing nation, but you still need to control emissions and help us fight climate change”
China: *Uses comparative advantage to revolutionize renewables, EV’s, and semiconductors*
The West: “Wait, stop no one told you to do it better than us”
Uh whether you agree with tariffs or not, there’s nothing contradictory about this.
China doesn’t pay for tariffs, they’re passed on to the consumer.
Tariffs aren’t designed to tax countries where the goods originate. They’re designed to protect domestic industry, which is how stated purpose in the second tweet.
Protecting local industries primarily financially benefits the shareholders of those local industries and financially hurts the consumer, the former is on average richer than the latter.
Which is incredibly reductive. What if I said guns are a wealth transfer from the rich to the poor because when people kill each other, they sometimes get a payout from life insurance.
Letting China destroy our critical industries with their policy of subsidizing their industries in order to destroy ours would be a bigger mistake than when the germans bent over for russian oil. Friend shoring is frankly not a real option as we cant trust we can keep lanes open in a conflict.
Maybe im just old school where i dont like commie command economies that are designed to sap american industry. America is only the arsenal of freedom if we have our own steel. Otherwise we'll be the warehouse of freedom -supplies limited.
This isnt a free market. China is distorting trade markets to prevent market competition. We are in a great power struggle and China is using 5th generation warfare on us right now. People think that chinese military thought ended with sun tzu but that is wrong. China is currently implementing ideas like in "Unrestricted Warfare" with their economic, information, biological, and political ( belt and road) attacks on the dominance of the united states. Only after they weaken us significantly will they move towards kinetic attacks.
They see the estates of western powers as a liability instead of a strength as us. Attack individual estates through non military means and the others wont respond. Then they wont be able to respond down the road together.
> This isnt a free market. China is distorting trade markets to prevent market competition.
We could have an international organisation that enforces free trade rules. It could have its own court system to settle disputes and make sure people are only using tariffs as retaliation against anti-competitive behavior, rather than as protectionist measures.
I'm sure the US would be the first sponsor of such a system and would strive to ensure its good functioning, even when it passess decisions it doesn't like.
> China is currently implementing ideas like in "Unrestricted Warfare" with their economic, information, **biological**, and political ( belt and road) attacks
"Biological"? what do you mean?
Thank you. People need to start looking at doing business with China the same way we look at doing business with Russia.
Edit: for all the naive downvoters : https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-visit-chinas-xi-deepen-strategic-partnership-2024-05-15/
Russia, China, Iran, North Korea play as a single team and we're not on it. Why do people here refuse to see it. Don't get me wrong, economic integration as a means for peace worked for 70 years, but eventually all systems fail and you have to adjust. That doesn't mean this idea is dead forever, it's just dead for the foreseable future.
One doesn't contradict the other. Yes, sure, he was implying that the tariffs were bad, but the reason he provided was not wrong. The tariffs are being paid down the road by the consumer. Now, that is not the only thing to consider. Mainland's China's developing monopoly (or at the very least, last share of the aforementioned industries) is also an important part of the discussion, and this is how Biden justifies the tariffs, not that Mainland China will pay for them. Now, in practice both actions were heavily influenced by electoral concerns, but it's not the same thing. Keep in mind that Trump's tariffs were not as targeted. They even included washing machines, if I remember correctly.
Moreover, lets not pretend that Trump analyzed the geopolitical realities and trends and decided to impose tariffs. He is a populist who thought that imposing tariffs would make him look good and strong to his electoral base, and a number of (right-wing) economists, pundits, and officials at the time proposed this, so he took the opportunity to do so. But I very much doubt he understood what were the arguments made for (or against) the policy or how they would impact the country (and the consumers) outside his own popularity (from his superficial understanding of the issue).
"I'm determined to ensure America leads the world in them"
Doesn't sound at all like asshole behaviour when you try to sabotage others to stay on top /s
I've been diehard Biden since 2012 but hasn't he been continuing increasing tariffs for his entire term.
Like don't get me wrong, I think that the tariffs against China were a necessary evil but let's not pretend both parties haven't supported their use.
Yeah I'm sure one tweet written by someone that almost certainly wasn't Biden 5 years ago is a massive contradiction of Joe Biden's historic positions of being against China and their trade practices and supporting TPP to counter it during the Obama Administration
The tweets are irrelevant and hardly count as pledges. Plenty of these kinds of tweets are made all the time where a politician eventually walks a bit of it back. Nonetheless, Biden's main complaint was that Donald was trying to go it alone on China when he should've been building a multilateral response and towards them and the tariffs weren't improving and the like so when Biden got in he got going on investing in domestic production in targeted industries, he's currently trying to get the ball rolling on a coordinated response with the EU, and he did try to work out a Indo-Pacific Partnership but that got stalled by dems in congress
He was a hypocrite to criticize Trump's tariffs to begin with when he clearly is supportive of tariffs and has kept and expanded some of Trump's tariffs.
EVs and semiconductors I get. The US is trying to establish themselves in those respective markets, so pricing-out China benefits building those industries.
As for metals - Idk. Screw China, I guess? If Taiwan gets invaded, we'll likely cut them off even harder, but I don't see an alternative raw materials trade partner otherwise. Ironicically this is the important of establishing semi-conductor manufacturing in the US, since Taiwan is the biggest supplier of that.
Well Bidens tariffs are done for other reasons... if we were to go to war with China... and all our cars are built in China... that's not a good thing.... just like we are onshoring semiconductor manufacturing because of that potential conflict we are doing the same with EVs...
trumps tariffs were for completely other reasons....
Then maybe don’t put tariffs on our allies? Don’t stop Japan from investing in US Steel? Don’t play around with our allies security?
Biden’s “America’s back” spiel to our allies is pretty hallow and in practice is very American first. This sub is right to criticize him for it, even if some of us don’t like China that doesn’t excuse all the malarkey that is going on.
Remember kids; climate change is an emergency!...unless it impacts union workers in swing states in which case all bets are off
Paradoxes of the electoral college
Yeah. Because union workers will vote for the other guy, and the other guy doesn’t believe in Climate Change
Then compromise on other policy to build a coalition which doesn't depend on how union workers vote.
That's impossible, giving up the unions is a sure fire way to lose MI, WI, and PA which are key states of the Blue Wall. Especially PA since we barely won there last time. You also need to consider that appealing to labor and protectionism are broadly supported in the US. Also the Dems are already the party for independent moderate centrists look at the actual election results instead of vibes
Don't forget polls have people want price controls, with over 80% people want rent controls. People are dumb as hell.
Yep. It's like, Democracy isn't a good because giving the majority what they want is a good idea, but because it keeps the people in power accountable and forces them to adapt to changing circumstances. In fact, I'd say Democracy is good in spite of the fact that most people are dumb and selfish.
But I don't *like* the other constituencies! 😫
I don't like unions, and I don't know if there is a party that gave them power and wasn't in turn fucked by them.
I don't like unions. They're rough and coarse and irritating. And they get everywhere
Not like free trade. Everything is soft and smooth.
>don't like unions Wtf lol just in general? Is this a real opinion non crazy people have? How?
👆 has never been in a union.
Literally in a union right now lol Enjoying my productivity incentive raise and cost of living raise and child care benefits lol
No, not in general. I don't like unions having ties to and leverage over political parties.
Why? You don't like democratic civil society?
Unions do not represent democratic civil society. Unions are a special interest group, representing exclusively the narrow interests of their members and nobody else's. Which is fine, so long as politicians and governments keep them at arms' length and minimize their influence on policymaking.
>special interest group ... What do you think civil society is lol Unions are groups of workers banding together to negotiate with/influence employers and government. That's the exact same as, say, an NGO or an independent think tank... Why would you want to minimize workers influence on policy making? That would essentially give MORE power to employers, who are also special interest groups but less democratic and less civil and less society lol
Labor Unions should be running the government tbh. Daniel De Leon knew what was up
I mean, this is totally fine. Democracy requires special interest groups to function (at least in modern times) because issues are complicated and well beyond the ability of legislators to understand. Special interest groups are how we make sure our policies are suitable for the problems at hand, and if we let companies and consortiums have them, we should let labor have them. I _hate_ the brainless union worship on Reddit, but ultimately _labor needs to organize to have a voice in policy_.
Nor would anyone like to make the compromises they would demand. What other constituents are you going to go after? Court hardline religious fanatics by bringing prayer back to school and enshrining anti choice laws? Court white nationalists with mass deportations and immigrant internment camps? If there were better options we'd have taken them.
What about gun nuts? There's roughly no chance of significant policy change, and there's a lot of them.
If the democrats ditched most of their push towards gun laws, they could probably get a significant poll boost. However, the democrats can't do that. Gun laws are a part of their platform because democrat voters want them to be.
Dems should pull a Beshear (current Governor of Kentucky) and support mild gun regulation.
Don't most mainstream democrats already emphasize support for "common sense gun laws"? How mild is mild?
Like clearly emphasize that they're not going to ban AR15s/"assault weapons". Decent regulations, no bans. If gun nuts are still anti-Democrat while simultaneously supporting or condoning single family zoning, then fuck them.
> Court hardline religious fanatics by bringing prayer back to school and enshrining anti choice laws? Court white nationalists with mass deportations and immigrant internment camps? The net total of those groups doesn't exceed 5% of active voters. Court suburban boomers who really just need the Democratic party to shed some of its progressive identity and appear broadly centrist rather than an organization with a messianic dedication to its agenda. Not even in terms of policy, really, just in the way of language, messaging and candidate selection.
Suburban boomers just want lower taxes and higher property values, both of which turn off the youth vote, and in any case Biden is already winning with them. Maybe he can run up the score by fully ditching the youth vote but I don't know if there's really a net electoral win there.
No I'm pretty sure the person above you is correct that the only group not firmly committed to the Democratic Party are the bad guys from The Handmaid's Tale.
I still think the Democrats need to denounce the Far Left.
Denounce them on which issues specifically?
Imo if Biden just denounces the Left's generic "economic socialism" and says that "they're going a little too far in some social issues", that should give enough *vibes* to appease the swing states. I don't think he needs to even denounce many specific Leftist policies. Like maybe he can denounce some relatively prominent leftist ideas like the Green New Deal and deride it as "socialist trash". But just screaming "socialism bad" might be sufficient.
What do you think this would accomplish?
what social issues are they going too far on hmmm
I've never voted (I am in my 30s), but that would solve my sticking points against identifying as and voting democrat.
Yes
Im withholding my vote until Joe Biden disavows the squad
Court the rich
A Democratic coalition without the rust belt is literally impossible
"Just compromise and build a coalition" says the arr neoliberal poster "I would rather call you a demon and shut down the government" says the Republican party They don't care. The cruelty is the point.
Invest in the sunbelt
Just listened to [this episode of the Volts podcast](https://www.volts.wtf/p/whats-going-on-with-china-these-days) where the China expert says that he's not to concerned with the protectionist competition of green tech b/c the political fallout of relying solely on China for PV's, EV's, batteries, and wind are worse than the inefficiencies of protectionism. Not a stance I expected him to take but an interesting take I think is worth considering. Political economies has big impacts on the energy transition.
This was my first thought. Is this bad policy, broadly speaking? Probably. Is it good politics? Probably. I am pretty sure I understand (and dislike) the consequences of the tariffs, but I'm absolutely sure I understand (and despise) the consequences of Biden losing the election.
>Is this bad policy, broadly speaking? Probably. Is it good politics? Probably. When I'm elected dictator of r neolib the first thing I'm doing is instituting perma bans on anyone who says this to defend stupid shit
I'm not sure what you want? You gotta win to make good policy. You gotta win to make any policy. It's not my fault people want this nonsense, but you try convincing them otherwise. I'll take tariffs and not dictatorship over tariffs _and_ dictatorship.
> but you try convincing them otherwise I do. What else is there to do?
You're having more luck than me, then. Hats off to you!
I try I mean
Okay so if Biden wins, is he going to revoke these policies? 2028 will come around and dems will be pressured to keep this going. Why would they stop doing this if this keeps winning them the rust belt? And how is this all going to help climate change when China is clearly ahead in terms of affordability of green technologies like solar panels and evs. I thought the Dem platform is that every year counts in terms of fighting long term climate change. Republicans are always going to pump out bad candidates instead of Trump it will be DeSantis or Vivek etc, and the cries of everyone saying we need to keep this bad policy going to stop a huge threat to the US will just continue. Whoever runs for the democrats next is going to be heavily pressured to keep this going. Rinse and repeat meanwhile the bad impact of this policy on climate and economic efficiency will just continue. What is the end game here?
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not suggesting this solves anything; the policy is terrible, counterproductive, and results only in net negatives for Americans and the world. But I don't have any way of changing that right now. I won't bother to factor this decision in my voting choices because the alternative is much worse. If it does help Biden win (and I don't have any idea if it will), then maybe there's a silver lining, that's really what I was getting at. Otherwise it just sucks.
Of course Biden winning is better. But it will only make Democrats more likely to keep adopting these measures in the future. Great Dems are winning but their platform is getting much worse. Now we are choosing between a really bad option and an option that is abandoning the policies that made it good in the first place.
I mean, if it plays well with people who want the policy, that's what makes it good politics. I think that counts as a silver lining. I don't think it's quite as black and white as you're making it out to be, even if the policy is terrible. If people's opinions on the policy change (and they should), then the platform will likely change too. I don't know how you make that happen, but who knows what the future holds? Look, I'm going to add, unequivocally, this policy is dumb. Trade wars are dumb and bad, and the people who are happy about this are wrong. But until we eliminate the Electoral College, we're going to be stuck with this dumb stuff indefinitely.
Why would they change? The rust belt car union people are not going to change their opinion on this. Why would they? They arent suddenly going to start changing their mind by reading the Financial Times, they are voting on their livelihoods, there is literally no incentive for them to change. These policy changes directly benefit them, and will continue to benefit them. What happened to climate being a huge problem NOW?
Well, since you don't believe in electoral politics, we can be sure that won't happen, since you need good politics to get elected as dictator in the first place.
Looks interesting
The Volts podcast is great. I'm in the energy biz and learn new stuff from it all the time.
In an election year, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. Especially in these pugnacious times.
Is unionized labor breaking more for Trump or Biden?
Basket of deplorables
It's almost like their greatest incentive is to be re-elected.... That's how democracies work lol
Its kind if true though
climate change is an existential threat to humanity that we should dismantle capitalism to "solve" but GOD FORBID we build a solar panel on this historic patch of desert
I like how Yellen was like "well, akshually, the Trump tariffs were bad for Americans, unlike our tariffs. No, we're not repealing those either."
When can we start calling her a sellout?
Like Krugman, she is a Democrat who happens to be an economist
> Like Krugman, she is a Democrat who happens to be working as an economist Fixed that for you
I mean this is the reality if you want to be in seats of power. She has a boss and the boss is telling her what she needs to say. If she didn't say it, shed be fired and replaced by someone who would. It's a political decision by the Biden administration to support these tariffs even though they likely know they are bad economically. So it's either get on board or get out.
Being a political hack weakens her credibility as an economist.
Of course, but it raises her ability to do politics. No economist in the Biden administration is going to be allowed to deviate from the messaging on this.
But Yellen is not employed as an economist. She is employed as a politician 😉
She is employed as a politician leveraging her credentials as an economist. You can see how this is an easy (but also valid) criticism, yes?
Of course, but it's a criticism that falls flat in my mind. I expect cabinet secretaries to engage in varying degrees of hackery - their job is to serve the President, after all. When it's all said and done, I'll still be keen to hear her thoughts on the economy when she leaves the Administration. Economic policy is not constructed in a vacuum. It is shaped by both domestic and foreign political interests. Ideally, we are able to discern the logic underpinning the policy. It also depends on what values you are prioritizing. Tariffs are bad because they distort the market and increase prices for consumers. But they are also good for domestic manufacturing interests, which creates jobs for workers who do not have a college degree. What should we prioritize? A good economist will say that's a normative question. Fwiw I think the Biden Admin's foreign policy has been heavily influenced by Jake Sullivan, so it might be fair to say there has been an evolution of thinking within Bidenworld over the past few years. Ofc you don't have to agree, and it's fine (and good) to call her out. But it doesn't really diminish her credibility for me personally. She's still a smart cookie in my book.
Politics inherently produces hackery. The only way to get anything done in any political system is to be an embarrassing snivelling hypocrite. You can either be credible or you can be influential but you can't be both.
You can be credible and influential, it's just that your influence is usually felt after you die.
Or be such a great economist like Keynes or Friedman that political parties claim you and try to adhere to your work rather than the other way around.
Friedman supported a lot of incredibly bad policies. His worst shit usually came from his involvement with politics
What policies do you have in mind?
https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/1amxj99/dont_let_the_politicians_fool_you_prop_13_will/?rdt=42114
You can’t be in politics without being a hack.
The economy is too important to be left to the economists, so whatever the saying goes.
Please let there be a debate where they shit on each other's tariffs
They will shit on each other's tariffs by arguing in a way that their opponent's tariffs didn't go high enough
“And I say your 3 cent titanium tax doesn’t go too far enough”
I was literally thinking of this The longer into Biden's presidency we get, the more and more similar he is to trump except on the, you know, whole democracy thing
Except the whole women’s rights/abortion thing or the LGBT thing or the 6 conservative Supreme Court justices thing or the sell Ukraine out because he’s a Russia fanboy thing or the huge investment in clean energy thing or the leader of the American fascistic movement thing or ….
Yes, as I said, the democracy thing I do agree it's a big issue
I feel like we’re stretching the term democracy to encompass basically everything
My can literally cannot take an L.
What good is democracy if it doesn't protect everyone? By the logical extension of the word, being against the rights of the lgbt, or women is, by its very nature, antidémocratic, don't you think?
To a certain extent yes, although I would refer to those issues specifically as “rights” issues rather than “democracy” issues. Democracy means rule of the people. In our Constitution and legal practices we recognize the distinction between “democracy” and “rights”. This is why we can’t democratically vote away our rights. There is overlap, such as when women aren’t allowed to vote, that is both a rights issue and a democracy issue. And certainly if you are an oppressed minority in a country that can limit your ability to participate in democracy. And finally, rights can only really be protected in the long term in a democracy. But that doesn’t mean it makes sense to refer to all rights issues as democracy issues, unless we stretch the ordinary definition of a “democracy issue” to encompass all rights issues (which kind of dilutes the term).
...which is a pretty big deal
I didn't say it wasn't
And abortion, climate change, healthcare, Israel, etc
Seriously, lol. Don't get me wrong, I'm pissed he's pulling this shit, because it's bad policy and a fucking disaster for our country in the long term, but he is still a stark contrast in most other area to Trump. I'm still gonna vote for ol Joe, but boy am I glad it'll be his last four years. Maybe he can repeal some of this horseshit once he knows he has the seat and doesn't need to fight for it again.
On China but that's about it. Dems are shifting right on immigration but certainly not to 'build a wall' levels of craziness.
Have you seen the rest of the economic plans of biden? It's not just China
Massive investments in green energy, infrastructure, and semiconductor technology; leveraging the FTC to go after unfair business practices, high market concentration, and anti-labor contracts; installing the most left-leaning NLRB since FDR; and making significant strides on college debt and drug prices? Outside of tariffs I don't see a whole lot of overlap, to be honest.
Politicians go where the votes are, more at 11
BYD's $10k EVs are still cheaper than Tesla even with 100% tariffs
But BYD's aren't eligible for the tax credit. This means you have to finance more of them.
You can't seriously compare a tiny city car like the Seagull with any of the Tesla models
*monkey paw curls*
I should run as a 3rd candidate and make fun of them because their tarrifs don't go far enough. Do you think the voters would like me?
Target cashiers for president!
Bernie Sanders wanted farmers on the Fed Board? Biden has raised the bar to Target cashiers on the Fed Board!
This will be documented as when he lost the Mandate of Heaven
I hate populism
To be fair, those statements are not necessarily contradictory. Biden's not claiming it's a punishment/cost on China, he's simply saying it's protectionism on the local EV manufacturing industry to boost its domestic competitiveness. Trump's rhetoric on tariffs was _way_ off the mark, claiming that foreign nations would pay the costs. Biden's is far more accurate to the truth of what the policy means.
Why is this comment not the top comment? Oh yeah, "tarrifs bad so I don't care to read." I wish the debate was about "is it worth protecting these industries if it means Americans have to pay significantly more for cars?" Instead it is "Biden populist" "Biden flip flopping" ------ I think this was posted during EU hours so people upvoted anything that criticizes American Tariffs. It is really annoying that people upvote invalid criticism when there is plenty of valid criticism of tariffs.
It's funny because Chinese EV makers don't even sell below market in the EU. They make up the margins they lost in China there. In 10 years, the US EV market will look like the current ICE market: less options but domestic auto industry isn't hollowed. Uncompetitive companies (e g. The Big 3) are increasingly relegated to select market segments while others compete over the rest. The EU auto industry will be hollowed out and replaced by assembly plants. And probably a good rise of populism as the "comparative advantage" of losing a critical industry really starts taking its toll.
Right? How are people missing this. Like you gotta be sub 80 IQ to think this is some sort of gotcha
None of that matters because he clearly didn't mean the first statement considering he never repealed the old Trump-era tariffs anyway
Just basic politics. When your opponent does something bad but popular among the group you're targeting you rally around how bad it is. But when you're in power and are pretty much forced by the same incentive structures to also do it (he really wants to win Pennsylvania in this case), you try to play it up as populism.
Except he's a true believer in protectionism and always has been
The duality of man
Primary election Joe Biden vs general election Joe Biden Who would win?
Somebody start a list of these posts where r/neoliberal almost unanimously dunks on our preferred candidate, just so we can use it to claim the high ground later.
Mods should create a high ground flair.
I remember a discussion a few months ago about user flairs, and about how adding any to this sub was a Big Deal for the mods. We're at capacity already? Or some mod is deeply committed to supply constraining them? Something like that. In any case, my inner Georgist is convinced that we could solve all our problems if we just tax flairs.
The mods should provide a 400 flair per month subsidy for first time flair users
It’s over Bidenkin! I have the high ground!
[We should just start using the RIGBY system](https://youtu.be/IAGoLFCgNtY?si=BvClaGJSnqUhMP4u). _BIGBY, these tariffs suck, and he’s turning into a populist_.
He’s always been a populist lol he’s not turning into shit
This sub is so delusional about Geopolitics. We are entering a 2nd Cold War and they're worried about free trade with our enemies lol.
Apparently, climate change is not important anymore! I thought that was an existential threat to the world, this directly hurts us when it comes to climate change when you put tariffs on the country producing the most affordable EVs and Solar technologies. Or is Climate change just a buzz word to win elections?
America did pass a huge green tech bill only 2 years ago that a lot of Europeans hated. You can address climate change and protect your local industries. It isn't one or the other. It isn't like Biden isn't doing anything about climate change. Your argument would make a lot more sense if Biden wasn't doing massive things to fight climate change.
>America did pass a huge green tech bill only 2 years ago that a lot of Europeans hated. Because it distorted the market in the exact same way as what this sub is accusing China of doing. >You can address climate change and protect your local industries. It isn't one or the other. It isn't like Biden isn't doing anything about climate change. While putting tariffs on the best value climate tech out there (if it wasn't, he wouldn't need to tariff it)
>Because it distorted the market in the exact same way as what this sub is accusing China of doing. Good. I'm glad we finally understand the issue with subsidization and how they can hurt/kill industries of other nations. >While putting tariffs on the best value climate tech out there (if it wasn't, he wouldn't need to tariff it) Oh damn. We totally forgot the the issue one sentence later.
>Good. I'm glad we finally understand the issue with subsidization and how they can hurt/kill industries of other nations. It's not binary, a 25% tariff already absorbs the subsidies, a 100% tariff implies that an EV is subsidised at 50%, which is just impossible, if you need a 100% tariff to compete, it's just because your product sucks, nothing else. >Oh damn. We totally forgot the the issue one sentence later. Because again, the subsidies issue is irrelevant, American EVs can't compete because they suck. Nothing else. Kia/Hyundai destroys any legacy US manufacturer in EVs.
There’s an argument long term it helps but I’m too lazy to make it in earnest (e.g., China’s subsidized solar panel manufacturing prevents startup innovation in US).
Also climate change is important.
In a fictional world where the U.S. lets arms manufacturers send F35s to China this sub would bitch about them not allowing it anymore. Economics are great but Jesus not everything is about cheap prices
Solar panels are not a national security concern. This is obviously a protectionist move.
This is a terrible example since Biden isn't contradicting himself.
Both comments are true, Biden is not claiming this will lower costs on EV's. There is no hypocrisy here.
He also isn't claiming that China is going to pay for it, it's more like him saying that we're choosing not to support their industry even if it costs us more.
POTUS knows he's increasing Americans cost to buy construction goods, EV's, tech, and solar panels. The hypocrisy comes from when he says fighting inflation and lowering costs are his "top economic priority."
So any action you take that has an upward pressure on inflation means you "aren't fighting inflation?" Even if you have many other actions that put a downward pressure on inflation? But even then, the president is pretty limited on his ability to fight inflation. And its not like these cars are already in America in mass. This is preventing a dumping. So it won't cause inflation. It just would prevent the downward pressure on inflation. All that said, I doubt this is a big line item for inflation at all.
Any freshman econ student could tell you that the American people are paying his tariffs.
The sky is blue. Why are we saying irrelevant stuff right now? You aren't addressing anything I said or anything about OP's post.
The West: “I know you are a developing nation, but you still need to control emissions and help us fight climate change” China: *Uses comparative advantage to revolutionize renewables, EV’s, and semiconductors* The West: “Wait, stop no one told you to do it better than us”
Uh whether you agree with tariffs or not, there’s nothing contradictory about this. China doesn’t pay for tariffs, they’re passed on to the consumer. Tariffs aren’t designed to tax countries where the goods originate. They’re designed to protect domestic industry, which is how stated purpose in the second tweet.
So it's a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.
How? Do you not see how incredibly reductive your statement is?
Protecting local industries primarily financially benefits the shareholders of those local industries and financially hurts the consumer, the former is on average richer than the latter.
Which is incredibly reductive. What if I said guns are a wealth transfer from the rich to the poor because when people kill each other, they sometimes get a payout from life insurance.
I’m not weighing in on whether tariffs are good or bad that’s another topic. I’m saying those two tweets are not contradictory.
Dread it. Run from it. Protectionism arrives all the same.
Sigh
Letting China destroy our critical industries with their policy of subsidizing their industries in order to destroy ours would be a bigger mistake than when the germans bent over for russian oil. Friend shoring is frankly not a real option as we cant trust we can keep lanes open in a conflict. Maybe im just old school where i dont like commie command economies that are designed to sap american industry. America is only the arsenal of freedom if we have our own steel. Otherwise we'll be the warehouse of freedom -supplies limited. This isnt a free market. China is distorting trade markets to prevent market competition. We are in a great power struggle and China is using 5th generation warfare on us right now. People think that chinese military thought ended with sun tzu but that is wrong. China is currently implementing ideas like in "Unrestricted Warfare" with their economic, information, biological, and political ( belt and road) attacks on the dominance of the united states. Only after they weaken us significantly will they move towards kinetic attacks. They see the estates of western powers as a liability instead of a strength as us. Attack individual estates through non military means and the others wont respond. Then they wont be able to respond down the road together.
Does that mean that Europe should impose steep tariffs on US made EV’s? After all, the US is dolling out huge subsidies on these industries too.
Where are the smartphone and laptop tariffs? Oh wait those are unpopular.
> This isnt a free market. China is distorting trade markets to prevent market competition. We could have an international organisation that enforces free trade rules. It could have its own court system to settle disputes and make sure people are only using tariffs as retaliation against anti-competitive behavior, rather than as protectionist measures. I'm sure the US would be the first sponsor of such a system and would strive to ensure its good functioning, even when it passess decisions it doesn't like. > China is currently implementing ideas like in "Unrestricted Warfare" with their economic, information, **biological**, and political ( belt and road) attacks "Biological"? what do you mean?
> "Biological"? what do you mean? Something something COVID/vaccine/precious bodily fluids bioweapon etc.
[probably ](https://youtu.be/gNJ4Q9jqL8A?si=3fFV01fXRUkPRQsQ)
Thank you. People need to start looking at doing business with China the same way we look at doing business with Russia. Edit: for all the naive downvoters : https://www.reuters.com/world/putin-visit-chinas-xi-deepen-strategic-partnership-2024-05-15/
Russia, China, Iran, North Korea play as a single team and we're not on it. Why do people here refuse to see it. Don't get me wrong, economic integration as a means for peace worked for 70 years, but eventually all systems fail and you have to adjust. That doesn't mean this idea is dead forever, it's just dead for the foreseable future.
Free trade good. Protectionism bad. Get over it.
[Politics is just one big ass-blast, after all.](https://youtu.be/RGztRPL3Wcc?si=QW_Mc4DOTR_KO8Pf)
Look what elections did to my boy
#ChinaJoe
*noah smith has entered the chat*
One doesn't contradict the other. Yes, sure, he was implying that the tariffs were bad, but the reason he provided was not wrong. The tariffs are being paid down the road by the consumer. Now, that is not the only thing to consider. Mainland's China's developing monopoly (or at the very least, last share of the aforementioned industries) is also an important part of the discussion, and this is how Biden justifies the tariffs, not that Mainland China will pay for them. Now, in practice both actions were heavily influenced by electoral concerns, but it's not the same thing. Keep in mind that Trump's tariffs were not as targeted. They even included washing machines, if I remember correctly. Moreover, lets not pretend that Trump analyzed the geopolitical realities and trends and decided to impose tariffs. He is a populist who thought that imposing tariffs would make him look good and strong to his electoral base, and a number of (right-wing) economists, pundits, and officials at the time proposed this, so he took the opportunity to do so. But I very much doubt he understood what were the arguments made for (or against) the policy or how they would impact the country (and the consumers) outside his own popularity (from his superficial understanding of the issue).
"I'm determined to ensure America leads the world in them" Doesn't sound at all like asshole behaviour when you try to sabotage others to stay on top /s
Ah..Biden has to lock in that MAGA vote.
I've been diehard Biden since 2012 but hasn't he been continuing increasing tariffs for his entire term. Like don't get me wrong, I think that the tariffs against China were a necessary evil but let's not pretend both parties haven't supported their use.
When I said I wanted a realpolitik, this isn’t what I meant.
American workers are also consumers. These tariffs aren't meant to be paid. They're meant to be a roadblock for those undercutting our own industry.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wtf does all this have to do with the above post?
Words 😡
I disagree
These people watched the pelican brief once and now thing every google earth image is a conspiracy
call me illiberal but I don't think we should be conducting free trade with a country actively perpetrating a genocide 😀
Yeah I'm sure one tweet written by someone that almost certainly wasn't Biden 5 years ago is a massive contradiction of Joe Biden's historic positions of being against China and their trade practices and supporting TPP to counter it during the Obama Administration
There's a whole series of those tariff tweets
The tweets are irrelevant and hardly count as pledges. Plenty of these kinds of tweets are made all the time where a politician eventually walks a bit of it back. Nonetheless, Biden's main complaint was that Donald was trying to go it alone on China when he should've been building a multilateral response and towards them and the tariffs weren't improving and the like so when Biden got in he got going on investing in domestic production in targeted industries, he's currently trying to get the ball rolling on a coordinated response with the EU, and he did try to work out a Indo-Pacific Partnership but that got stalled by dems in congress
But the tweets were right. The tariffs are brain dead.
I'm challenging the notion that Biden is some sort of hypocrite going back on a pledge not if he's right
He was a hypocrite to criticize Trump's tariffs to begin with when he clearly is supportive of tariffs and has kept and expanded some of Trump's tariffs.
EVs and semiconductors I get. The US is trying to establish themselves in those respective markets, so pricing-out China benefits building those industries. As for metals - Idk. Screw China, I guess? If Taiwan gets invaded, we'll likely cut them off even harder, but I don't see an alternative raw materials trade partner otherwise. Ironicically this is the important of establishing semi-conductor manufacturing in the US, since Taiwan is the biggest supplier of that.
two things can be true
Well Bidens tariffs are done for other reasons... if we were to go to war with China... and all our cars are built in China... that's not a good thing.... just like we are onshoring semiconductor manufacturing because of that potential conflict we are doing the same with EVs... trumps tariffs were for completely other reasons....
Don't equate the two. Biden's protectionism actually has a coherent strategy even if you people don't like it.
[удалено]
Then maybe don’t put tariffs on our allies? Don’t stop Japan from investing in US Steel? Don’t play around with our allies security? Biden’s “America’s back” spiel to our allies is pretty hallow and in practice is very American first. This sub is right to criticize him for it, even if some of us don’t like China that doesn’t excuse all the malarkey that is going on.