X Close

American industry must rise again The US has squandered its Cold War victory

The US needs an industrial policy. Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

The US needs an industrial policy. Jeff Swensen/Getty Images


November 2, 2024   13 mins

Austerity is rarely popular during election season, and already this campaign has featured a variety of budget-straining proposals. Donald Trump has called for exempting tips from taxation, which Kamala Harris subsequently endorsed. J.D. Vance has suggested increasing the child tax credit to $5,000; Harris later upped her bid to $6,000. The current vice president has also proposed $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers, while Trump has promised to make Social Security benefits and overtime pay tax free. The list will probably continue to grow.

But despite these promises, Americans are likely in for a period of consumer austerity no matter who wins the election. The only question is what form this austerity will take.

In somewhat simplified terms, the fundamental policy choice is between conventional or “neoliberal” austerity, progressive-environmental austerity, and what might be called “catch-up reindustrialisation” — a policy shift in favour of investment over consumption to rebuild the US industrial base and shore up America’s long-term security and economic prospects, particularly vis-à-vis China. In my view, the third option is both the necessary and most desirable choice, yet all three present their own difficulties and complications. The fact that all these choices involve some level of austerity doubtless contributes to the increasing bitterness of American politics.

Let’s start by considering neoliberal austerity. Conventional budgetary concerns have resurfaced with the inflation spikes of recent years and interest rates still near their highest levels since 2008. In the past, deficits significantly above 3% of GDP were only experienced during major economic downturns or in wartime. In 2023, however, the United States ran a roughly 6% deficit with a relatively low unemployment rate of around 4%. While paranoia about the US national debt has always proved baseless in the modern era, the limits of the present trajectory are becoming more visible, as interest payments take up greater and greater percentages of government spending.

The question for deficit hawks — today and in the past — is whether they are in fact primarily concerned with reducing the deficit. In America, this pose is often, if not typically, disingenuous — rhetorical cover for an ideological project of shrinking the state rather than responsibly balancing revenues with expenditures. Hence the most strident deficit hawks are almost invariably the most eager tax cutters. Or, perhaps more accurately, the most aggressive tax cutters often masquerade as deficit hawks but have little real interest in responsible fiscal policy.

Today, with federal tax rates at low levels, any serious deficit reduction programme would have to consider tax increases. The rates themselves may not even be the key issue: taxing corporate profits in the country where they are earned, or closing various personal loopholes, may have a greater impact at this point. But these items are largely excluded from the “deficit” agenda, especially among Republicans, who continue to indulge in fantasies that tax cuts will “pay for themselves”, despite the manifest failure of the Bush and Trump tax cuts to generate meaningful growth.

Instead, the conservative focus remains entirely on cutting spending. The problem here is that, within the realm of political plausibility, there is not all that much to cut. According to the most recent numbers from the Congressional Budget Office, “mandatory spending” (mostly Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) accounted for $3.8 trillion of the $6.1 trillion 2023 federal budget. Defence spending added another $800 billion, constituting almost half of “discretionary spending”. Interest costs were an additional $700 billion, contributing to a total deficit of $1.7 trillion. The bottom line is that, even if all $900 billion of non-defence discretionary spending were miraculously cut — zeroing out transportation, education, veterans’ benefits, the justice system, and scientific research — that would only reduce the deficit by about half. Significant deficit reduction must therefore involve cuts to the most politically sensitive areas: defence and entitlements.

Given China’s emergence as a peer competitor — and one with a massive industrial-base advantage — cutting defence appears to be off the table. On the contrary, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker, has proposed increasing defence spending to 5% of GDP, up from the current level of 3%. The reasons are clear: China built 21 submarines last year, while the United States struggled to build one; it will take up to seven years to replenish certain munitions stocks used in Ukraine, and analysts estimate that the United States would be out of some critical weapons within a week in any active conflict over Taiwan. One reason the US Navy has not been able to better protect Middle Eastern shipping lanes from recent Houthi attacks is a concern that the increased use of certain munitions there would compromise readiness for other potential conflicts.

“China built 21 submarines last year, while the United States struggled to build one.”

Simply throwing more money at the Pentagon and incumbent defence contractors will not solve these problems: serious procurement reforms and broader industrial policy measures are necessary. And yet there is little doubt that America’s security situation is more perilous than it has been for generations. Legacy ideological commitments further complicate these issues. The most aggressive “deficit hawks” — such as Nikki Haley in the Republican Party or various centrist Democrats — also tend to be the most fervent supporters of interventions in Ukraine and elsewhere to uphold a “US-led liberal international order”. Although Haley and others typically prefer to imagine that foreign policy and economic policy are distinct domains, their interventionist commitments nevertheless preclude any significant cuts to defence spending.

That leaves Social Security and Medicare. Cutting Social Security is so politically toxic that Trump has completely distanced himself from the proposals of George W. Bush and Paul Ryan, once hallmarks of conservative economic policy. Republican congressional leadership also notably refused to endorse entitlement cuts in the last midterm elections. Even if Social Security cuts were politically viable, however, there has been little serious effort to think through the effects.

Significant cuts would mean workers would have to defer their own consumption, either to save more for their own retirement or to keep their elderly parents out of poverty, creating a drag on growth and complicating deficit reduction efforts. Although Social Security is structured as social insurance rather than welfare, the benefit formulas are somewhat redistributive, so major cuts would probably result in a further shift of wealth from lower-income people, with a high propensity to spend, to affluent savers, with a lower propensity to spend.

In the past, advocates of “privatising” Social Security sometimes argued that allowing individuals to manage their own retirement savings would enable higher returns and boost growth. But the Social Security programme functions less as a professionally managed pool of capital, like the public pension funds common in many other countries or in US states, and more like debt-funded consumption stimulus. Eliminating Social Security, therefore, is not simply a matter of distributing a pool of assets to individual accounts. Furthermore, if the goal were simply to maximise returns, the Social Security “trust funds” could be authorised to make public and private investments beyond US Treasury securities. But the same small-government ideology that calls for cutting Social Security also resists giving the government the authority to make such investments, which could distort “market signals”. Devolving all responsibility to individuals, on the other hand, would magnify the impact of market volatility for each household and likely require further increasing savings. At the same time, the government would probably still be called upon to bail out retirees — whether they saved prudently or not — during major stock market crashes.

A more practical approach might aim to maximise the value derived from the existing programme rather than cutting it. Senator Vance was roundly criticised for saying that more should be done to enlist grandparents to assist with childcare. Yet there are a number of serious proposals to use Social Security to incentivise childcare or otherwise better support the sharing of resources within extended families.

The other major area perpetually on the chopping block is health care. This would appear to be more fertile ground: the United States spends 17–18% of GDP on health care, by far the most in the world, to achieve overall public health outcomes that are decidedly mediocre. Spending on health care programmes composes about a quarter of the federal budget. Surely, the system could be more efficient?

The problem, once again, is that ideological motivations are at odds with practical solutions. Those most eager to cut health care spending tend to be those most committed to “market fundamentalist” ideology, who tend to ignore the possibility that increasing state intervention might be necessary to control costs. But marketisation, in practice, has generally failed to control costs and, in theory, there is little reason to expect that it should. As the economist Kenneth Arrow demonstrated back in 1963, normal market dynamics do not apply to critical aspects of health care. Ordinary competitive and pricing dynamics are often absent, and the sector is characterised by deep information asymmetries and network effects.

The irony is that even practical incremental steps to reduce health care costs, such as government negotiating prices with pharmaceutical companies or hospital monopolies, or better regulating parasitic middlemen such as “pharmacy benefit managers” (PBMs), are generally resisted by the same people who claim to be most concerned about reining in spending. As a result, “marketisation” in the US context has simply meant a refusal to employ the state to control costs, contributing to a cycle of expanding subsidisation.

In sum, the concerns of deficit hawks are real enough when it comes to health care, Social Security and defence, but the politics around these concerns remain insincere and ineffective.

“The concerns of deficit hawks are real enough, but the politics around these concerns remain insincere and ineffective.”

A similar pattern prevails in progressive environmentalism, another sphere in which legitimate concerns have been pressed into the service of a counterproductive politics. In the United States, unlike in Europe, true “de-growth” austerity has become so discredited that most politicians have run away from it, though the impulse still exists among many NGOs and activists. Yet even if American progressives, for the most part, are not looking to shut down modern agriculture, discourage having children, or revert to hand-washing their laundry to stop climate change, they are eager to restrict consumer choices and divert public resources to promote renewable energy and electric vehicles. The Inflation Reduction Act, which includes most of the climate-related subsidies passed during the Biden administration, is estimated to cost somewhere between $800 billion to $1.2 trillion over 10 years. The actual cost is unknown, because some of the IRA’s tax credits are uncapped and theoretically unlimited — but the “energy transition” is certainly expensive.

The necessity of such costly carbon reduction efforts is often presented as beyond ordinary politics — only pathologically greedy science-deniers would oppose taking action to avert a global climate emergency! Yet while environmental concerns are seemingly universal, the environmental movement remains deeply partisan. There is no getting around the fact that climate activists frequently demand sacrifices from ordinary people while ignoring the behaviours of ultra-wealthy donors and displaying clear sectoral biases. The farmer, the coal miner, the exurbanite, and so on are all called upon to make difficult adjustments to meet various arbitrary emissions targets. But the billionaires who shuttle between multiple estates on private jets are never expected to change their lifestyles to save the planet, except perhaps to donate to the climate NGO complex. Wind and solar fields are supposedly essential — but not within sight of Nantucket. Fossil fuel companies are demonised, but tech giants whose server farms consume more and more energy are largely exempt from such criticism, as long as they make the right noises on ESG. Likewise, the environmental movement has fought to impose more and more regulatory burdens on manufacturing and heavy industry, all while turning a blind eye toward pollution offshoring to China and elsewhere.

“Climate activists frequently demand sacrifices from ordinary people while ignoring the behaviours of ultra-wealthy donors.”

In fact, the history of the American environmental movement and its political alliances is rather sordid. In its earliest days, environmentalism was associated with population control and even eugenics. After rebranding as an emissions control movement in the second half of the 20th century, environmental groups first teamed up with coal and utility deregulators against nuclear power. Then they took money from natural gas and Enron for campaigns against coal. Recent years have seen a turn against all fossil fuels, though nuclear has once again been grudgingly readmitted to the decarbonisation push. Ironically, the most significant opponents to new renewable energy construction are often legacy environmental groups, who helped construct a legal regime in which it is relatively easy for third parties to challenge any new energy installations on environmental grounds. This is one reason why far more solar fields have been built in red states like Texas compared to ultra-progressive states like California.

Beneath all the moral preening, then, the green movement is fundamentally just another interest group pursuing a relatively narrow, partisan agenda. It is, and always has been, primarily composed of affluent and professional-class individuals in “asset-light” corporate sectors, as well as opportunistic energy players. In many ways, it is the ultimate neoliberal coalition: a global, post-political orientation, overseen by technocrats operating through nondemocratic transnational organisations and financial markets.

To be sure, the fact that the environmental movement is a self-interested lobby does not necessarily mean that its core claims are false, even if some activists have engaged in alarmism and exaggeration in the past. Indeed, the absence of effective environmental policy is already imposing its own form of austerity, as seen in rising home insurance prices across the United States, to which climate change is almost certainly a contributor. Yet being right about some things does not make the environmental movement any less of a lobby.

Oddly, the green movement would probably have more success in the United States if it simply accepted its corporate-lobby character. Certainly, a movement that focused less on moral preening and NGO fundraising probably would not have made the mistake of trying to pursue decarbonisation while demonising nuclear energy for decades. It also might be more practical about encouraging the transition to clean energy and electric vehicles.

The current push into EVs, based on a combination of tax subsidies and state-level mandates, is already sputtering. Sales growth has slowed dramatically, and auto companies have shelved plans for new models. A more serious approach would recognise that the United States — unlike, say, Norway — is a large country with a weak rail network; people regularly drive long distances; and combustion vehicles’ rapid refuelling remains a significant advantage. At the same time, the United States — unlike, say, China — has little capacity to enforce top-down changes in consumer preferences and infrastructure construction. Two years after Congress appropriated billions for charging stations, not a single one has been built. A more practical agenda would have emphasised vehicles such as plug-in hybrids, which could have a major impact on emissions and would create incentives for the private sector to add more charging stations, while also appealing to consumers who desire flexibility. Such thinking, however, would require the green movement to abandon the pretence of moral purity and accept the compromises and coalitional balancing of any industry lobby.

The more likely outcome is the continuation of the status quo, in which lavishly funded NGOs persist in their attempts to push badly designed policy on a reluctant populace. Whereas neoliberal austerity is essentially an ideological movement trying to appropriate the rhetoric of economic interest, progressive environmentalism is a class- and sector-based lobby seeking to brand itself as a moral-ideological cause. Both will remain ineffective as long as they continue to labour under these self-delusions.

The third option is, for lack of a better name, catch-up reindustrialisation. As with environmental “austerity”, this does not involve conventional budgetary austerity — it may in fact require more public spending — but it does entail a shift away from maximising consumption and towards increasing investment in productive capacity. Trade measures such as tariffs intentionally raise prices, at least in the immediate term, while funding for industrial policies may come at the expense of other budget priorities.

The need for a serious industrial policy programme has become more pressing for various reasons. The first is national security. As discussed above, America’s defence industrial base has eroded considerably. By contrast, China’s manufacturing advantage is overwhelming, which has created supply-chain dependencies in a number of critical commercial areas as well. Surrendering sectors to foreign competitors often entails losing more than “commodity manufacturing”; it also means losing technological prowess and workforce skills. The United States need not look to dominate every manufacturing sector, but it will be impossible to fix the defence industrial base without improving the broader industrial base.

In addition, it is slowly dawning on American politicians that it is impossible to avoid having an industrial policy; the only question is whether to pursue one’s own, or to accept the imposition of someone else’s. China, in particular, by massively subsidising capital investment and export industries, has disadvantaged and discouraged investment in manufacturing and capital-intensive sectors in the United States. And by refusing to intervene, the United States has simply allowed Beijing to pick winners and losers.

Moreover, the fact is that, even without a self-conscious industrial policy, the US government has had to subsidise fallen national champions such as Boeing in recent decades. What has been missing is a serious plan to maximise the effectiveness of these investments, in large part because the post–Cold War neoliberal consensus precluded any open consideration of industrial policy.

According to this conventional economic theory, industrial policy will always be inefficient, value-destructive, and a drag on growth because it interferes with market-driven capital allocation. If private-sector actors require government support or prodding to make an investment, the theory goes, then it must be a poor investment, even if necessary for non-economic reasons such as defence. These models assume, however, a form of economic rationality in which firms operate to maximise profits. In reality, firms operate to maximise shareholder value. The two may occasionally overlap, but they are not the same. As a result, firms often maintain hurdle rates well in excess of their cost of capital, and pursue financial engineering strategies instead of investment. This behaviour may be irrational in the sense of forgoing profits, but it is often eminently rational in the sense of maximising equity valuation. The net result, from a national perspective, is chronic underinvestment, particularly in capital-intensive sectors where foreign industrial policies drive down returns. This is one reason why the relationship between financial returns and productivity breakthroughs has always been more tenuous than standard models would predict, and why industrial policy can spur economic development by dislodging financial rentierism.

Government investment promotion, therefore, is not necessarily value-destructive. It may in fact enable investments whose returns, while below private sector hurdle rates, are still positive. These investments, in turn, can form the basis of new companies, technologies, and industries, as the many historical examples of successful industrial policies attest, from Korean autos to Taiwanese semiconductors to early Silicon Valley.

From this perspective, successful industrial policy is perhaps best thought of not simply as consumer austerity but rather as “deferred gratification”, or investment in the future. Notably, the Chinese government has actively suppressed domestic consumption in favour of industrial investment throughout the last several decades, and yet, contra Western economic orthodoxy, has presided over a miraculous rise in living standards, in addition to its growing geo-economic power.

That is not to say, however, that the path forward for the United States will be easy. On the contrary, American industrial policy faces a number of obstacles and complications. First, US government agencies have relatively little expertise in designing and executing industrial strategy, certainly when compared to their Asian counterparts. The US government itself is poorly structured for this end, with limited institutional capacity to integrate foreign policy and economic policy.

Second, advocates of US industrial policy often have diverging goals in mind. Some focus on the defence industrial base, others on the “energy transition”, others on “creating jobs”. In a Venn diagram, these circles would intersect, but they are not identical. Such diffuse ambitions may impede both the passage and implementation of successful industrial strategy, as previous criticisms of “everything bagel” industrial policy have shown.

Third, the largest corporate and financial actors in the US are at best ambivalent about industrial strategy. They are deeply dependent on China, and are also prime beneficiaries of the “fissured economy” model in which intellectual property rents are separated from capital investment and labour. Furthermore, policies like the Chips Act passed in large part due to the support of incumbent industry lobbies, though policy design suffered in various ways as a result. It remains to be seen whether the United States can pursue industrial policy in critical areas that, unlike semiconductors, do not have powerful incumbent lobbies.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a critical ingredient present in the canonical East Asian industrial policy success stories is absent in the United States. Namely, the “Asian Tigers” each used global export markets, particularly the US market, as a competition check: companies that increased export share received more industrial policy support; those that did not were cut off. Without the export-market check, there is an increased temptation to subsidise “zombies”, rather than orient industrial policy investments toward improving productivity and competitiveness. US industrial strategy, therefore, may need to place greater emphasis on stimulating domestic competition. Another option involves using government procurement and investment to create milestone-based contests. In Operation Warp Speed, for example, the government offered contracts only to vaccine developers who met certain thresholds, such as Moderna and Pfizer. Unfortunately, such contracting models remain more the exception than the rule in US policy.

Thirty years after the end of the Cold War, it is clear that the United States squandered its unipolar moment, not only via quixotic foreign policy interventions but also through imprudent economic policy. Deluded by abstract and idealistic theories, American leaders offshored the country’s industrial base to what is now its greatest rival, in order to support debt-funded consumption and financial asset bubbles. The result is a new era of great power competition, massive public and private debt loads, and an economy dominated by software monopolies that have done little to improve productivity. In the next few decades, America will have to commit more resources to addressing these problems. If it fails to do so, an even more drastic austerity will eventually be imposed upon it, as an already strained empire collapses completely.


Julius Krein is the editor of American Affairs

JuliusKrein

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

30 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Francis Turner
Francis Turner
18 days ago

Anerica is an empire, and like all empires, is now in the early evening of its final decline, as is Europe. Who , 40 years ago, would have imagined that the likes of Ford, GM and Chrysler would ever go bust?.. Yet the US auto industry stubbornly refused to look at rivals, rather than what it saw as a permanently loyal domestic market, that deserted its outdated low tech products? Without the financial and IT/ tech sectors the US would be in a far worse state, and is being effectively propped up by a vast domestic market.

Dee Harris
Dee Harris
18 days ago
Reply to  Francis Turner

“is being effectively propped up by a vast domestic market.”
We should be so lucky…

Norfolk Sceptic
Norfolk Sceptic
17 days ago
Reply to  Francis Turner

Each industry has its day, and the free market allows for this. If we didn’t have it, we would still be praising horse driven transport, and wondering how to reduce the ’emission problem’.

The demise of the Western car industries is due to government edicts, like the NET Zero policies, a non-solution to a non-problem.

Mark M Breza
Mark M Breza
17 days ago

The car killed itself.

Nathan Sapio
Nathan Sapio
16 days ago

Hilarious, that’s an emission problem we can all care about

Brian Doyle
Brian Doyle
17 days ago
Reply to  Francis Turner

Bang on the money

Mark M Breza
Mark M Breza
17 days ago
Reply to  Brian Doyle

What creates 5 mile an hour commutes ?

Carlos Danger
Carlos Danger
17 days ago
Reply to  Francis Turner

About 40 years ago is when the American carmakers woke up and started adopting Japanese-style manufacturing principles. They were in danger of going bust then — Chrysler actually had to be bailed out. Nowadays they are competitive — the 2008-09 crisis was more due to external factors.

mike flynn
mike flynn
16 days ago
Reply to  Francis Turner

Chrysler did go bust 40 yrs ago. Jimmy Carter leant iacocca cash. They invented the minivan, and paid the debt back. The others are recipients of generous govt contracts when not getting bailouts like 2009.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
18 days ago

Who knew that endlessly ratcheting up spending – no matter its purpose – while believing it could be done on a credit card might not work out? Oh, that’s right; everyone who manages a personal or corporate budget knows that. People in local and state govts know that. Only in DC do people believe that they are immune from the laws of basic math. Money out can only exceed money in for so long. Eventually, that equation becomes a problem.
No society has ever taxed its way into prosperity and the endless need to punish people on the high end ignores that they pay the lion’s share of taxes as it is. Distasteful as the author finds it, the spending side must be addressed. Must. Be. Addressed. Start with a couple of useless federal agencies, like the Dept of Education whose presence and growth have been inversely proportional to student outcomes. Move to the welfare apparatus that features 100 anti-poverty programs.

Mark M Breza
Mark M Breza
18 days ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Boss Krein
Wow, another white collar clean hand telling labor they know how to put them to work !
Like they themselves would actually do blue collar tasks for a career.
Acting like the workers never heard of robots and AI.
We want opportunities not a 40 year Chinese factory droid job.

Nathan Sapio
Nathan Sapio
16 days ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

But wait, the author said authoritatively that cutting spending wouldn’t help…

Just kidding. Yours is the best response too this piece, by far.

Tony Masterson
Tony Masterson
18 days ago

American CEOs, and their pathological obsession with short-term profits, helped ‘Make China Great Again.’

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
18 days ago
Reply to  Tony Masterson

So did slave labour.

mac mahmood
mac mahmood
17 days ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

US prosperity has very largely been based on their very own slaves labouring in their actual cotton pickin’ chains.

Jon Barrow
Jon Barrow
17 days ago
Reply to  mac mahmood

Slavery economically impoverished southern states in different ways (as per De Tocqueville).

John Riordan
John Riordan
16 days ago
Reply to  mac mahmood

Rubbish.

Dave Canuck
Dave Canuck
17 days ago
Reply to  Tony Masterson

Also suited American and other western consumers fine, all those cheap made in China goods. There is plenty of blame to go around, no one really cared about the slave labor conditions as long as the product was and is cheap. Suited governments as well by keeping inflation low

Mark M Breza
Mark M Breza
17 days ago
Reply to  Dave Canuck

And when they bring those jobs back to the US it will be
high paid unforced Labor ?
What economic dream world do these Labor experts
feed the Amerikan peasants .

Carlos Danger
Carlos Danger
17 days ago
Reply to  Tony Masterson

What, you mean companies like Apple? They have never been focused on short-term profit. They went to China in large part not because of lower labor costs, but because they could not produce a product like an iPhone in the US no matter how much it cost. There is not the capability here.

Graham Cunningham
Graham Cunningham
17 days ago

Great essay. It punctures many economic myths promulgated by the kind of commentariat who like to indulge their economic opinions even though they aren’t actually sufficiently interested in economic realities to educate those opinions….particularly about inevitable trade-offs in any policy decision. “At the end of the 80s, with the collapse of utopian socialism in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, laissez faire capitalism – undergirded by a humane but limited welfare safety net – seemed the only way to go. So much so that even quasi-socialists like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were on board with it. But thirty years on I do think there is a strong case to argue that our recent history of internet- turbocharged globalisation has taken laissez-faire down a wrong track. Adam Smith – widely seen as the father of laissez-faire capitalism – would, if he were alive today, have agreed….probably.” https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/globalism-vs-national-conservatism

Dave Canuck
Dave Canuck
17 days ago

It’s a great article, but does anyone believe that either of the two running for president can coherently attempt to deal with the complexity of what they are facing? One of them may read this and just move on with a couple of simplistic policies for appearances sake, the other won’t get past the 1st paragraph and just go golfing. Good luck to the US, they will just keep piling on the debt until the end. The system is hooked on spiraling debt

Ddwieland
Ddwieland
16 days ago
Reply to  Dave Canuck

So you haven’t noticed that some of the Trump team (and lately the man himself) have addressed the need for re-industrialization?

mac mahmood
mac mahmood
17 days ago

On the one hand ……, and on the other …. .

Connecticut Yankee
Connecticut Yankee
17 days ago

Korean Shipyards are significantly faster and cheaper than US shipyards. And the biggest difference between US shipyards and Korean shipyards is that the former regards the certifications of their suppliers as the most important way to determine who gets a certain contract, while the latter regards the guarantees offered as the most important determiner of who gets a contract. What distinguishes a guarantee from a certification is that a guarantee( which is a monetary penalty if a thing provided doesn’t work) means that a supplier has a much greater incentive to ensure that the shipyard actually uses the materials and parts provided properly. The supplier has a much greater stake in the quality of the product. While a certification in the end doesn’t really mean much past the sale phase of a contract negotiation and isn’t nearly as direct and therefore results in a much lower quality product overall. US manufacturing has too many certifications and not enough guarantees.

Carlos Danger
Carlos Danger
17 days ago

Excellent essay, with a lot of insights. But I disagree with its pushing of industrial policy. The best way to promote industry is to free up the free market. Not for the government to step in.

Stated that way, it’s too simplistic but I think the basic principle is sound. Take electric cars, for example. As the author points out, the government is trying to force consumers to buy what they don’t want. Best to let the market work. Consumers aren’t stupid.

That said, it is important to think about incentives. As Charlie Munger used to say, show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome. Market incentives usually do much better than government incentives, but there can be abuse by powerful market players. Government can help with that limited task.

Nathan Sapio
Nathan Sapio
16 days ago

You lost me at “you can’t cut taxes to raise revenue”. People who live in the real world and account for incentives are familiar with things such as the laffer curve.

Martin Johnson
Martin Johnson
16 days ago

In the 1990s intellectual competition between Fukuyama’s “The End of History” and Harrington’s “The Clash of Civilizations,” the incorrect argument, Fuluyama’s, prevailed. And now we must deal with the consequences.

mike flynn
mike flynn
16 days ago

SS is not the problem. Employees and employers pay in 12.6% of gross pay altogether. Up to about 140K earned. SS Trust then loans the US govt all the money to be paid back with interest. SS Trust is the largest holder of US debt. Govt squanders it on name your favorite pork program. SS could contribute to it’s future by uncapping the amount of gross earnings subject to the with holding. But this would just anger the affluent and corp.

Having people work to 70 or 75 is no answer. Most corps are looking to rid themselves of most long term workers by age 50. And most people are used up well before 70.

Privatizing just sets US up for 1920s style speculation, or further control of markets and investing by govt.

Ddwieland
Ddwieland
16 days ago

The considerable value of the insights that this article presents is unfortunately tainted with too much regard for “environmental” activist claims. For example, stating that with rising insurance costs,”climate change is almost certainly a contributor” and seeing merit in government efforts in “energy transition” to supposedly cleaner transportation fails to consider some important facts. The slight net warming of the planet hasn’t actually changed the climate anywhere (and storms have decidedly not gotten more frequent and/or severe than in pre-fossil-fuel times, except in news reports and alarmist publications). The push for electric vehicles and unreliable “renewable” energy ignores the real environment damage that those policies entails, even apart from the economic cost.
The problems developed over decades and will likely take decades to correct. But real progress requires an honest understanding of the issues, such as squandering resources on false alarm or recognizing the security implications of unfettered globalization.