[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)


IRC Chat




File: 1698939026071.jpg ( 133 KB , 1080x675 , Screenshot_2023-07-29-00-2….jpg )


Is this why the ruling finance wing of the book hates/fears Trump so much?

>Donald Trump has proposed a 10 percent “universal baseline tariff,” recently telling Larry Kudlow, “I think we should have a ring around the collar, as they say.” Though relatively modest compared to historical tariffs, Trump’s proposal should be praised for reviving the great American tradition of Hamiltonian political economy. The first secretary of the Treasury’s vision for American dynamism, yoking private interests to the public good through domestic investment and economic protection, became “the American System” that, adopted by the Republican Party, transformed the 13 colonies into a transcontinental superpower.

>Today’s Republicans, for all their celebration of the Founding Fathers, have largely forgotten the economic program that did so much to advance US prosperity. On Dec. 5, 1791, Alexander Hamilton delivered his “Report on the Subject of Manufactures” to the House of Representatives. In it, he summarized, and shot down, free-trade precepts reminiscent of Adam Smith. Instead, Hamilton called for Americans to declare economic independence from Smith’s Britain, much as they had declared political independence a decade and a half earlier. The report was one more flashpoint in the Cabinet war between Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, who was then secretary of state.

>Jefferson wanted America to be a land of yeoman farmers, with a modest economy built on the export of agricultural products out of the excess of continental bounty. Hamilton believed that this would squander the new nation’s chance to assume a separate and equal station among the powers of the Earth, consigning the young republic to the pathetic role of resource pool and captive market for European manufactures. Better to use an energetic federal government to augment the productive powers of American labor with a diversity of manufactures and feed demand at home.



>supposedly hates him
>even though he is one of them
>even though he most likely doesn't even exist
>even though they agreed to give him the xbox controller to dronestrike browns for 4 years
>even though they hyped him up more than anything in histary has been hyped up for 7 years
NPCs are so tiresome, thinking they can vote their way out of actual praxis. Unless someone brings me trump's severed hand I will not beleive that he is real. Presidents are an illusiory choice that will do the same thing regardless of which one they agree to convince the poors they voted for.


If you want to do protectionism to build up domestic producers, in present conditions.

The best way to do it is start funding the creation of a industrial base as dynamic public sector industry. Private investors can't into heavy industry anymore because it's too capital intensive and too long term for them. Next put protective tariffs on specifically those industrial outputs. Once the private sector secondary industries start using those as inputs, you can expand the protectionism to include their goods and so on. That way your protectionist tariffs grow outwards like a tree that mirrors the shape of the industries it's supposed to protect.

You don't want to put tariffs on goods you can't make your self yet, because that's just raising the prices of commodities for no reason. You have to realize that other countries will treat tariffs as an economic war and retaliate with counter tariffs, and for that reason you also want to avoid using more tariffs than are needed.

You also probably want to do something to raise wages to increase demand for all that stuff you are making, and of course you need to invest in infrastructure, you need lots of railways and roads to transport all that stuff.


State-run shit always sucks and fails because there is no penalty for failing. The funds keep coming.

Self driving cars, reusable rockets, LLMs, modern touch screens, etc. All of these were created with the support of friendly economic policies, sometimes with funding through state contracts, not through direct state funding and development.

You can claim that somehow someway more stuff would have been developed faster if only the state took over the reins of production, but you have zero evidence for it. It's just speculative faggotry, which you seem to be an expert in


>the great American tradition of Hamiltonian political economy
So giving bankers blowjobs and trying to establish a monarchy?


>State-run shit always sucks and fails
Well pretty much all current large industrial bases on the planet resulted from a big public sector, including the American industrial heyday after WW2.

>there is no penalty for failing

I think you are talking about Wall-street too big to fail.

>Self driving cars, reusable rockets, LLMs, modern touch screens, etc.

Virtually all of the technology that makes these possible was developed in the state sector. The private sector is good at turning an existing technology into a product and then iterate on it to improve it's features. But fundamentally new, paradigm breaking stuff usually comes from the public sector. Private capital is not willing to take risks on radically new shit. Consider that neural network machine learning technology, that llms are based on, was developed in the 80s.

>You can claim that somehow someway more stuff would have been developed faster if only the state took over the reins of production, but you have zero evidence for it.

No it's the other way around. Virtually all recent historic periods of rapid technological progress have been driven by public sector activity.

For example in the west where most of the economy is privatized you see massive stagnation, while China where the industrial and technical R&D is state led, they see massive changes.
China today, versus China 20 years ago: massive improvements
The west today, versus 20 years ago: everything's mostly the same, except more run down

The last time when the west saw this type of progress was when the soc-dems ran a big public sector industry.

You are just regurgitating ideological lines that bare no resemblance to reality. The private sector is really good at designing nice consumer products (when they refrain from screwing you over with anti-repair-crap, planned obsolescence and subscription-feudalism). But they suck at organizing the technical base of society. The base of the economy is extremely capital intensive, has low margins and return on investment takes decades, private capital seeks the opposite: low capital-costs, high margins, and quick turnaround on investment.

Look at Europe for example they also went through the neo-liberal privatization craze and as a result they largely abandoned nuclear power, because the private sector doesn't want to invest in to large capital intensive projects that run for 60 years. The consequence is that Europe is now having it's economy choked because it lacks cheap energy. Which was an entirely predictable result.

Unique IPs: 5

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]