Has the US economy improved over the past year?

[Greta]

Would these tariffs lead to more or less US jobs?

https://www.osa-opn.org/home/industry/2 ... nel_tarif/

Phil, do you know why tariffs fell out of favour late last century? Simply, they are short term fixes with problematic longer term consequences, resulting in uncompetitive industries with ever growing corporate welfare costs.

Just more of the bubble that Trump is busily inflating.

So tariffs don't protect. They lessen domestic competition. I'm sure Trump is aware of this with his administration which makes me wonder why he favors them?

Because Trump is a short term thinker, focused on the now. Whatever problems he causes will probably bite during the next Democrat administration so it's simply good politics, and certainly not unprecedented in its cynicism of embracing bad economics for gains in populist appeal.

[FlashDangerpants]

Skip is complaining outside the subject. He doesn't like the existence of the economy at all, or else there is something in the fundamental architecture of the relationships between people that it describes which makes him angry in ways that he has difficulty articulating. Complaining that GDP is not a measure of how socially beneficial an activity proves to be is like complaining that my ruler doesn't measure which of the centimetres I point it at is nicer than the others.

Greta is entirely correct that tariffs (as well as not tariff barriers) are long established as a bad idea. They are demonstrated to result in reducing the international competitiveness of the precise industries they set out to protect, with so many studies of the subject that it's just about the least contentious issue in the entire field of study. The role of tariffs in both deepening and prolonging the global depression of the 1930s is similarly ominous.

However Trump cannot create a coal bubble, that's absurd. Coal is not coming back because people other than the federal government have to invest billions of dollars in order to bring back the infrastructure to burn the stuff and nobody is going to place a 25 year $10Bn investment on that obviously lame plan. Sustainable energy resources are however a long way short of being exponentially more efficient than renewable energy for the propulsion of cars and planes. US companies are at the forefront of R&D in all these areas anyway, and US consumers buy a lot of electric cars. So being late to the Paris accord party at a federal level doesn't automatically make the US economically uncompetitive.

Also there is no link to inflation in what you wrote, you just threw that one in to use a bit of jargon.

As for PhilX... Well he gets super pissy and extra bullshitty when his errors are pointed out and I'm too busy right now for yet another round of that bollocks. But the statistic that answers his unemployment question is called the Labor Force Participation Rate and it has been static at 62.7% which indicates that unemployment isn't really changing much. That's not to say the unemployment statistics are a lie, it's just there are some things that counted and some that don't whichever measure you use. However, if more or less full employment today delivers a net loss of 3.5% of the workforce against the year 2000 ... then that is not good, it implies that a surprisingly large part of the population is invalided out of the workforce.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Historically protectionism hasn't worked. However it's not a science and there are a number of factors (including how long would it take before we know for sure?)

In the long run, things may change (including who controls Congress and who our next President will be).
Time will tell.

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

Skip is complaining outside the subject. He doesn't like the existence of the economy at all, or else there is something in the fundamental architecture of the relationships between people that it describes which makes him angry in ways that he has difficulty articulating. Complaining that GDP is not a measure of how socially beneficial an activity proves to be is like complaining that my ruler doesn't measure which of the centimetres I point it at is nicer than the others.

Greta is entirely correct that tariffs (as well as not tariff barriers) are long established as a bad idea. They are demonstrated to result in reducing the international competitiveness of the precise industries they set out to protect, with so many studies of the subject that it's just about the least contentious issue in the entire field of study. The role of tariffs in both deepening and prolonging the global depression of the 1930s is similarly ominous.

However Trump cannot create a coal bubble, that's absurd. Coal is not coming back because people other than the federal government have to invest billions of dollars in order to bring back the infrastructure to burn the stuff and nobody is going to place a 25 year $10Bn investment on that obviously lame plan. Sustainable energy resources are however a long way short of being exponentially more efficient than renewable energy for the propulsion of cars and planes. US companies are at the forefront of R&D in all these areas anyway, and US consumers buy a lot of electric cars. So being late to the Paris accord party at a federal level doesn't automatically make the US economically uncompetitive.

Also there is no link to inflation in what you wrote, you just threw that one in to use a bit of jargon.

As for PhilX... Well he gets super pissy and extra bullshitty when his errors are pointed out and I'm too busy right now for yet another round of that bollocks. But the statistic that answers his unemployment question is called the Labor Force Participation Rate and it has been static at 62.7% which indicates that unemployment isn't really changing much. That's not to say the unemployment statistics are a lie, it's just there are some things that counted and some that don't whichever measure you use. However, if more or less full employment today delivers a net loss of 3.5% of the workforce against the year 2000 ... then that is not good, it implies that a surprisingly large part of the population is invalided out of the workforce.

First my thanks to Greta for her response which is on point, but leaves questions open.

It would be useful to talk about two periods of unemployment, the period of lesser unemployment and the period of greater unemployment. A Google search on protectionism brings up those two periods in that order.
But those periods can vary in their length and how big the unemployment rate is and there can be other factors (e.g. the Federal Reserve monetary policy). And choice can be involved (the Chinese may or may not build a factory although, at last report, they will which would lead to jobs).

Now I see FDP is shooting off his mouth again about me being "Super Pissy" and likes to use ad homs on me so I'll give him a chance to redeem himself by contributing to this thread. Some questions are in order which I'm posing to FDP:

1) The first period - how long will it last?
2) What will the first unemployment rate be?

3) How long will the second unemployment rate last?
4) What will the second unemployment rate be?

5) Take the difference between the second and first unemployment rates. Will this difference be more or less than the other differences arising from other periods of protectionism?

This gives you a better idea as to what's involved.

PhilX

[Skip]

Skip is complaining outside the subject.

Skip was not complaining anywhere. Skip was responding to PhilX's question:

Define the US economy. How many do you know of?

Skip's answer was: Four, only one of those being GDP, wherein Skip pointed out the shortcomings of each specie of "ruler".
But thanks for the free psychoanalysis; a nice demonstration of value for money.
Next time i have difficulty articulating my view on any subject, I'll know whom to consult.

[Philosophy Explorer]

FDP said:

"US consumers buy a lot of electric cars." Not true when compared to certain other types, but this can change in the future (charging stations need to be built).

PhilX

PS This article just came out:

https://www.ecowatch.com/electric-vehic ... 34560.html

[wtf]

FDP said:

"US consumers buy a lot of electric cars." Not true when compared to certain other types, but this can change in the future (charging stations need to be built).

PhilX

PS This article just came out:

https://www.ecowatch.com/electric-vehic ... 34560.html

Isn't it the case that the net pollutants from electric cars are actually greater than for fossil fuel cars? The argument is:

* It takes a certain amount of energy to move a mass through a distance. The energy has to come from somewhere.

* Gasoline is an extremely efficient energy source.

* By the time you burn enough coal (and yes this is how they do it) to run the plants that make the batteries, you might as well just burn gasoline in your car. There's less net pollution burning gasoline to move a car through a given distance than there is burning coal to make the electricity to move the car the same distance.

* The only difference is that the pollution is somewhere else, and that's all the liberal "environmentalists" really care about. They don't care if YOU live next to that car battery plant. As long as THEY don't have to.

That's my understanding of the technology (and politics), but I could be wrong.

[Greta]

However Trump cannot create a coal bubble, that's absurd. Coal is not coming back because people other than the federal government have to invest billions of dollars in order to bring back the infrastructure to burn the stuff and nobody is going to place a 25 year $10Bn investment on that obviously lame plan.

It's a good point but, even more short term, by keeping existing coal infrastructure going beyond what would ideally be their use-by dates he "saves jobs".

At some point many of those fossil fuel jobs disappear, thus a small bubble. A bubblet, if you like, given that investors in new coal fired power stations are going to harder to find, as you say. Yes, the tariffs and the latest taxes will be the larger bubble-makers.

[Skip]

That's my understanding of the technology (and politics), but I could be wrong.

You could! It's easy.
The technology changes minute by minute. If your information is three years old, it's hopelessly wrong.
The politics never change: idjits who know nothing about the facts and everything about the current polls play to the cameras, follow the 24-hour news cycle and make stupid policy decisions.
Not only is coal not coming back, it's being mined by robots already and can't make any more jobs, which means that backing it won't win any elections. (The only pol too ignorant to drop that clinker last year was Trump.)
They don't make a long-term plan and see it through. Investors are a bit more far-sighted - at least they can see that all fossil fuels are finite, dirty, controversial and insecure, while renewables have an unlimited future and unlimited potential profits.
The present state of electric cars vs gasoline cars doesn't matter: money goes to the perceived future, and petroleum is of the past.

[wtf]

You could! It's easy.
The technology changes minute by minute. If your information is three years old, it's hopelessly wrong.
The politics never change: idjits who know nothing about the facts and everything about the current polls play to the cameras, follow the 24-hour news cycle and make stupid policy decisions.
Not only is coal not coming back, it's being mined by robots already and can't make any more jobs, which means that backing it won't win any elections. (The only pol too ignorant to drop that clinker last year was Trump.)
They don't make a long-term plan and see it through. Investors are a bit more far-sighted - at least they can see that all fossil fuels are finite, dirty, controversial and insecure, while renewables have an unlimited future and unlimited potential profits.
The present state of electric cars vs gasoline cars doesn't matter: money goes to the perceived future, and petroleum is of the past.

Silly me. I thought a refutation or correction of my post would include facts about how gasoline is less efficient than I thought (it's not), or that clean coal changes the picture, or that car batteries are now made from daisies picked by elves, or that so-and-so published a study and showed that net pollution from electric cars is less than that produced by burning gasoline.

Instead, you allowed every single one of my point to stand. Your post amounts to saying that the air WILL in fact get dirtier, but somewhere other than near the politicians voting to divert taxpayer subsidies to electric cars.

In other words you totally agreed with my point by not only failing to refute any of my facts, but by also agreeing that the move toward electric cars is political and not technical.

[Skip]

None of the above.
Merely pointing out that economic policy should be looking forward, not harking back.
It should invest in improvement, rather than self-delusion.

[wtf]

None of the above.
Merely pointing out that economic policy should be looking forward, not harking back.
It should invest in improvement, rather than self-delusion.

I quite agree. Can you explain to me how increasing net pollutants while burning coal is moving forward? Where do people think the electricity in the car batteries comes from?

Here's a piece from the WaPo.

Electric cars and the coal that runs them

Cutting transportation-related emissions can help — but not if pollution is simply shifted from the tailpipes of cars to the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants, which generate 40 percent of the world’s electricity.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/el ... story.html

And here's SciAm.

Electric Cars Are Not Necessarily Clean

Your battery-powered vehicle is only as green as your electricity supplier

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ily-clean/

[Arising_uk]

...
* By the time you burn enough coal (and yes this is how they do it) to run the plants that make the batteries, you might as well just burn gasoline in your car. There's less net pollution burning gasoline to move a car through a given distance than there is burning coal to make the electricity to move the car the same distance. ...

Don't disagree with your analysis but would it change if we were scrubbing the coal fumes at the chimney stack? After all cars and especially diesel produce a lot harmful pollutants. And if we did get to a majority of electricity from renewable energy sources then even less pollution?

[Skip]

Why insist on generating electricity with coal? Nuclear is being offered [in my face, all the time] as the only viable alternative, which is equally stupid.
There are established, developing and emerging energy generation and storage technologies, innovative conservation strategies, clever designs and bright ideas, that the rest of the world is busy exploring, while the USA lags far behind.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/index/tech.html
https://www.energysage.com/solar/solar- ... ar-panels/
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/8-unbelie ... ectricity/
https://inhabitat.com/tag/green-architecture/
https://www.treehugger.com/wind-technol ... signs.html


Why? Because regressive administrations have encouraged regressive industries and obstructed progress - all in the name of "The Economy". The solar panel tariff will destroy many small and start-up companies that are operating on a shoestring, and set the energy sector back another two decades - for no reason except personal spite on the part of a little group of ignorant despots. What would work - should anyone in power actually care - is to aid and co-ordinate the development of new energy sources, component manufacturing and skilled worker training, so that, when the made-in-America product becomes available, there is a crew ready to install it, an energy source available to feed it, a maintenance team ready to service it, and a fair financing scheme to encourage people to buy in.
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/innovation-cle ... tation.htm
https://www.theicct.org/
https://jopeninnovation.springeropen.co ... 017-0059-y
And, yes, California is, effectively, already another country.

[Arising_uk]

Why insist on generating electricity with coal? Nuclear is being offered [in my face, all the time] as the only viable alternative, which is equally stupid.
...

Why?