Reich lectures on "America First"

[Tero]

Economic nationalism is a failure

https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/887084738753593344

[Forty Two]

Economic nationalism is a failure

https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/887084738753593344

Indeed, Reich makes some good points. Like when he says the Dreamliner is assembled in the US, but most of its parts are obtained from overseas. That's one of the problems the US is facing. US parts suppliers are going away. That's not good. He points out that the countries like Germany, Italy, France, and Canada from which various parts are obtained don't pay their workers low wages, and he claims that most of the foreign workers get a "better deal" than Boeing's workers in the US - he then claims that the countries from which Boeing gets the parts are higher tax, higher cost, stricter regulation countries, and they are countries that have national health care and such - so, why does Boeing get the parts from these countries, Reich asks? Because the parts are better than anywhere else in the world, including the United States. Apparently, according to Reich, even though costs are lower in the US, the US is incapable of manufacturing equivalent quality. So, his solution to the issue is provide national healthcare (even though airplane manufacturers and their suppliers already have healthcare provided to employees), state funded college (even though we have low cost college options in the US), and to unionize (I guess unionize the already unionized airline industry).

So, Reich's basic argument is that even though parts suppliers in the US would pay lower taxes, lower wages/benefits, have fewer union issues, etc., they are incapable of building an airplane door, cabin lighting, wing flaps, fuselage, etc. - even though Boeing itself has always been an American company, and has been building planes for something like 100 years. What we need to get the parts suppliers back to the US is to raise taxes, increase wages/benefits, and strengthen unions in the workplace, and then the parts suppliers will move from overseas to the US, or American based companies will be better able to build aircraft parts. Sounds ironclad.

[rainbow]

What we need to get the parts suppliers back to the US is to raise taxes, increase wages/benefits, and strengthen unions in the workplace, and then the parts suppliers will move from overseas to the US, or American based companies will be better able to build aircraft parts. Sounds ironclad.

That is one of the dumbest things you've ever written here.

[Brian Peacock]

I think you've over-reduced his argument there 42. Isn't he saying that there's production standards and productivity gains to be had from securer jobs, higher wages, taxation for public services like healthcare and education etc - that these things are economic boosters?

[Forty Two]

What we need to get the parts suppliers back to the US is to raise taxes, increase wages/benefits, and strengthen unions in the workplace, and then the parts suppliers will move from overseas to the US, or American based companies will be better able to build aircraft parts. Sounds ironclad.

That is one of the dumbest things you've ever written here.

It's not what I said, it's what Reich said. He said that the places that can build cabin lights, airplane exit doors, wing flaps, and parts for the fuselage, etc., are countries with higher wages/benefits, stronger unions, stricter regulations, and higher taxes on corporations which are used to pay for single-payer healthcare and college education. So, in order for the US suppliers to be competitive, he suggests we do the same thing. Only he calls it "investing."

[Brian Peacock]

Why do you think 'investing' is the wrong wrong to use there?

[Forty Two]

Why do you think 'investing' is the wrong wrong to use there?

Well, first, the semantic word choice is a secondary issue, not the one I was focusing on, which was what Reich was saying makes companies more competitive when they work in higher tax, higher wage/benefit, stricter regulatory environment, countries.

But, the question posed is why is "investing" the wrong word? Because it's a euphemism designed to make "spending" seem more attractive. It's like saying I have to "invest" in a new car to get me back and forth to work. It certainly has the benefit of being transportation so that I can make money, which I'd not be able to make if I didn't have the car. However, it is not an "investment." It's an "expense." I need to purchase or spend money on a new car, I don't "invest" in a new car. I have to buy an insurance policy to cover the car, and an insurance policy to cover my health risks, but I don't "invest" in them. I pay for them. I purchase them. It's not an investment.

Reich knows to use the word "investment" because the Democrats switched from government spending to investment a long time ago. They're not "tax and spend" Democrats. They're "pay your fair share so we can invest" Democrats.

[Tero]

Investing was not handing workers free stuff. It was building efficient industry start ups under conditions where people like to work and get a good wage. We don't have that. Germany etc do.

[Rum]

Uncannily like the debate here in the UK. Labour are 'tax and spend' and 'can't be trusted with the economy, according to the Tories and of course the Tories are only interested in make the rich even richer according to Labour. 'Investment' here is couched in terms of 'infrastructure' investment. So taxes aren't being frittered away on 'cushy' government pay increases but on things like a new High Speed rail service to Manchester. This 'investment' will make everybody better off...apparently.

Given the fact that economics is not an exact science - more or less no science at all in fact, you might as well toss a coin.

[Tero]

That's the government for you. They tax me so that they can pay my neighbor to play clarinet in the symphony orchestra. Because the mayor likes to go to the symphony with the governor.

(We don't actually have a working orchestra).

[mistermack]

"America first" was apparently Osama Bin-Laden's favourite saying.

[Brian Peacock]

Why do you think 'investing' is the wrong wrong to use there?

Well, first, the semantic word choice is a secondary issue, not the one I was focusing on, which was what Reich was saying makes companies more competitive when they work in higher tax, higher wage/benefit, stricter regulatory environment, countries.

Nonetheless, you placed the word 'investing' in "scare quotes", so the semantic implications of that word-choice are clearly bound to your view - as you explain, and I address, below.

But, the question posed is why is "investing" the wrong word? Because it's a euphemism designed to make "spending" seem more attractive.

What is unattractive about contributing resources today (spending) with the aim of securing future profits (investment)?

It's like saying I have to "invest" in a new car to get me back and forth to work. It certainly has the benefit of being transportation so that I can make money, which I'd not be able to make if I didn't have the car. However, it is not an "investment." It's an "expense." I need to purchase or spend money on a new car, I don't "invest" in a new car. I have to buy an insurance policy to cover the car, and an insurance policy to cover my health risks, but I don't "invest" in them. I pay for them. I purchase them. It's not an investment.

This is an equivocation on 'invest/investment'. Contributing resources today with the aim of securing future profits is indeed an 'expense', but it's not only an 'expense', nor does the fact that it is an 'expense' mean, nor necessitate, that it isn't or cannot be an 'investment'.

Reich knows to use the word "investment" because the Democrats switched from government spending to investment a long time ago. They're not "tax and spend" Democrats. They're "pay your fair share so we can invest" Democrats.

it seems that you are inviting us to assume and/or except one of two things here? That Reich doesn't really know what he's talking about and has used the wrong term, or used a term with a specific meaning in the wrong way or context, or just that Reich is a bad-faith actor - that he's seeking to mislead and misdirect his audience as part of a broader Democrat party ploy to mislead and misinform, and that his use of 'investment' is deployed for those nefarious purposes? It's clear by now that this is where you'd like these conversations to reside, but as usual you're threatening to abandon the basic issue in order to prosecute your oblique charge.

Regardless of what the 'Tone Police' have to say about Reich's use of language, is his meaning unclear in the context of his speech? Is he wrong to suggest that structural reform in the areas of wage, regulation, and taxation policy, and an increased allocation of resources for public service like health and education etc could contribute to US manufacturing becoming more competitive, and if so why is he wrong to suggest it?

[Hermit]

But, the question posed is why is "investing" the wrong word? Because it's a euphemism designed to make "spending" seem more attractive. It's like saying I have to "invest" in a new car to get me back and forth to work. It certainly has the benefit of being transportation so that I can make money, which I'd not be able to make if I didn't have the car. However, it is not an "investment." It's an "expense." I need to purchase or spend money on a new car, I don't "invest" in a new car.

Actually, an expense incurred for the purpose of generating an income is called investment. That's the definition.

[Rum]

That's the government for you. They tax me so that they can pay my neighbor to play clarinet in the symphony orchestra. Because the mayor likes to go to the symphony with the governor.

(We don't actually have a working orchestra).

Personally I am in favor of higher taxes and much better social support for those who need it and can't afford it (not to mention medicine) - including for the arts - as long as it is done well - perhaps via evidence led approaches. I am not however in favor of inefficiency and waste. How to get the balance right seems however to be a tricky business and nobody seems to have got it quite right. During the Blair years, when a great deal of good was done in terms of spending on medical and educational infrastructure, I witnessed first hand some of the excesses - conferences in London for managers like myself - all paid for as one small example, staff 'away days' and the like.

[laklak]

Whenever I hear the word "art" I reach for my Luger.