The tariff on Solar is a bit overblown imo. China managed to implement its own solar renewable projects well ahead of schedule and started selling off their excess panels as exports to places like the US and EU. That obviously affected domestic solar markets in those places and, as I understand it, both the US and EU now have tariffs against Chinese made Solar panels to offset losses to domestic panel makers.
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
The tariff on Solar is a bit overblown imo. China managed to implement its own solar renewable projects well ahead of schedule and started selling off their excess panels as exports to places like the US and EU. That obviously affected domestic solar markets in those places and, as I understand it, both the US and EU now have tariffs against Chinese made Solar panels to offset losses to domestic panel makers.
Where does this refute my point?
- It doesn't make sense to compare the speed China installs it's solar panels with the time U.S. companies have to install theirs (or is China installing in the U.S.? Still wouldn't matter has installing has nothing to do with trade in the first place as it's a domestic service).
- I also fail to understand why the fact that German have the most patents is relevant. It's about China.
What imo is plausible, and again I'm no economists (@MTF helps us out), is that atm China can produce a lot cheaper than domestic firms which is supported by the fact that 90% of imports are from there and also the nature of tariffs itself. In order to promote the domestic industry of solar equipment a country could now try to make imports more expensive so that domestic companies can catch up by investing (given that a higher level of technology requires lower manpower/unit produced therefore reducing the advantage of cheap labour China has).
- It doesn't make sense to compare the speed China installs it's solar panels with the time U.S. companies have to install theirs (or is China installing in the U.S.? Still wouldn't matter has installing has nothing to do with trade in the first place as it's a domestic service).
- I also fail to understand why the fact that German have the most patents is relevant. It's about China.
What imo is plausible, and again I'm no economists (@MTF helps us out), is that atm China can produce a lot cheaper than domestic firms which is supported by the fact that 90% of imports are from there and also the nature of tariffs itself. In order to promote the domestic industry of solar equipment a country could now try to make imports more expensive so that domestic companies can catch up by investing (given that a higher level of technology requires lower manpower/unit produced therefore reducing the advantage of cheap labour China has).
That may very well be true, but that would only make the concept invalid if it had to happen every single time by sheer causality.
There is a few examples of countries I believe have made it work, e.g. Japan, Korea or Taiwan (since WW2).
I don't think this is a fair statement tbh. It is unfair to shackle such industries with poor initiatives when the rest of the world is headed in a completely different direction. It only shows that the current administration has vested interests and doesn't give a flying feck about how it would affect the industry/economy in the long run.
Which bit isn’t a fair statement?
The coal mines analogy. Irrespective of what the current administration does, the coal industry is on its way out.
Your logic has been, and continues to be forwarded by economists the world over. So its not at all the case that you're proposing something entirely without merit. But:
a. To the extent that the new import price post tariff is 1.3x the prior price (from the US buyer point of view), our hypothetical US producer only has an incentive to make his production as efficient as the point where he can achieve his rate of return (read profit, really) by also selling at the 1.3x price. They usually never bridge the gap from the 1.3x to the 1.0x.
b. Moving onto politics, the domestic industry that is born out of protection usually secures enough political influence (owners + employees) to make it very hard to remove protection once it might be reasonable for the rest of the economy to do so.
c. Beyond just the dynamics of the production and profit from producing solar panels (and especially any of these capital goods) is that its economic benefits as a whole might be greater than its own value chain (wages + profits). Meaning the value of clean energy to society as a whole. By raising the price, regardless of how production shifts overtime, you are pretty much ensuring that there will be fewer purchases and installs in the US. So less of the larger economic benefit.
Yeah, the logic isn't flawed. I just think the risk/probability skews towards a future of a less-than-efficient domestic industry, rather than an efficient domestic industry. And, yes, there are cases where it has worked favorably.
I agree. That doesn’t mean a dead horse can’t be flogged, especially when the owner keeps paying you handsomely to do so.
Good thing the market isn't heavily influenced by it.
I wasn't necessarily trying to refute your point. I was trying to point out the dependencies of the US solar industry. Not claiming to be an expert either, it just seemed to me that trying to protect the US market will end up hurting it.
Seems to be some coordination going on to bring Kamala Harris' name into everything nowadays on Twitter.
E.g. You click on the tweet just above this post and the top comments are about Harris when the story has nothing to do with her. Its like there's some bot led campaign going on
E.g. You click on the tweet just above this post and the top comments are about Harris when the story has nothing to do with her. Its like there's some bot led campaign going on
Seems to be some coordination going on to bring Kamala Harris' name into everything nowadays on Twitter.
E.g. You click on the tweet just above this post and the top comments are about Harris when the story has nothing to do with her. Its like there's some bot led campaign going on
She also gets mentioned regularly on CNN and MSNBC. Its like certain people want to hype her as a prominent contender despite she herself never having expressed any interest. I do think if Bernie ran that he would consider her as VP since they are aligned on quite a few policies, most notably single payer.
She's not publicly expressed interest, but its clear that she is going to run.
Yeah she may be entertaining it privately, but in fairness, anyone on the Bernie side of the house wouldn't get much traction if Bernie himself is going to run. He is after all still the godfather of the left of center social democratic movement. So if Harris wants to run, she may have to position herself as being in sync with Bernie's policies, but also in touch with the establishment power structure of the Dem party. This is again, why I think she would make a viable VP if Bernie gets the nomination.
Harris is a mainstream Obama-Dem, not a Bernie type.
Correct. But she has endorsed single payer, which goes a long way. The aristocrat giving the state of the union response refuses to, by the way.
I do remain a little sceptical whether Bernie can pull it off. Clinton destroyed him in the southern states, so he'd have to make significant inroads in those areas to win the nomination.
Yeah he would probably not fare as well in the south since they are more in sync with Doug Jones type politicians and prefer their Dems to be centrist, in the Bill Clinton mold. That said, Bernie would have significant support in most other places, and with superdelegates off the table, it would make it pretty difficult to beat him, unless of course a prominent player like Biden decides to run. That would be quite a showdown.
She is a bit of a hybrid between Obama and Bernie. She supports two key Bernie positions (healthcare and free education), but has also carefully straddled a variety of establishment polices during her DA and AG days in California.
I was surprised not to see his name in a letter to Brazil's Ambo to the US the other week, denouncing Lula's trial in Brazil as politically motivated. But these clowns did sign it:
Mark Pocan
Keith Ellison
Ro Khanna
Frank Pallone, Jr.
Steve Cohen
Barbara Lee
Raul M. Grijalva
Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr.
Pramila Jayapal
Marcy Kaptur
Karen Bass
Jan Schakowsky
All are House members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.(He founded it as a Rep in the 90s and is now the only senator in it).
Their willingness to wade (although it made no headlines) into issues that they know little about, in the legal system of another (friendly) country, to defend their socialist friend is impressive. It almost undermines their non-interventionist stance on other issues... I wonder if they ever got to power they might not find the CIA useful to interfere in the politics of other countries, except this time to favor the parties of their
liking...
WYNN's stock is tanking today. Definitely a good buying opp.
Really? You actually think Bernie is left of left? Ask the rest of the world how "socialist" Bernie is. He'd barely qualify for membership in Canadas NDP, or any other actual left wing parties out there.
The democrats really aren't even really left of center, they are right of center, left of the Republicans.
He's about as left as one can be and still be a viable player in American politics.
Don't disagree at all. He might be more left at heart, but he conforms to what is permissible and what is permissible in US politics, isn't very left.
Yep - the Dems need a bit of fresh blood. Definitely one to watch as a potential VP pick.
Missouri U.S. Senate hopeful who expects dinner from fiancée nightly says feminists have "snake-filled heads"
Feminism DESTROYED by FACTS and LOGIC
Feminism DESTROYED by FACTS and LOGIC
fecking prick, I hope he doesn't have a daughter.
I hope he does and she grows up to be everything he purports to hate.
2020 looming large