The Problem With the 'Abundance Agenda'
True abundance requires a minimal state and free markets.
With much fanfare, the Biden administration announced this week the availability of the first subsidies for domestic semiconductor manufacturing facilities funded by the $52 billion bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act.
Yet many of the people who support the law's goals of subsidizing semiconductor production were surprisingly glum as they pointed to all the processes, mandates, and regulations the administration was attaching to this new money.
Manufacturers looking to get a CHIPS Act subsidy will have to abide by union wage mandates, provide child care for their workers, buy American materials, submit their new subsidized facilities to onerous federal environmental reviews, and potentially share any "excess profits" with the government.
The value of these new subsidies will be spread thin indeed as a result.
"Everyone acknowledges what we are trying to do here, in trying to make a larger, more globally competitive U.S. semiconductor industry, is a difficult challenge," said economist Adam Ozimek to The New York Times. "Advocates of industrial policy should worry that not only is this going to fail, but it's going to discredit industrial policy for a generation."
Here's how not to do industrial policy: https://t.co/yhqqgTLXVj
— Alec Stapp (@AlecStapp) March 1, 2023
Economics blogger Noah Smith was even more despondent this week when he declared the U.S. a "build-nothing country" for its failures to create not just more semiconductor factories but also solar farms, transit lines, housing, and more.
"America is spending all the money, and things still aren't getting built," wrote Smith.
This is an increasingly frequent complaint one hears from a growing set of liberal and left-wing writers. They bemoan America's inability to convert monetary investment, both public and private, into actual physical things progressives have long wanted: more affordable housing, more renewable energy, more mass transit, and more stuff generally.
We've gotten worse at building these things, even as our need and desire for them has grown.
"The revolution in communications technology has made it easier than ever for ordinary people to loudly identify the problems that they see in the world. But this age of bits-enabled protest has coincided with a slowdown in atoms-related progress," wrote Derek Thompson in an essay for The Atlantic last year. "Altogether, America has too much venting and not enough inventing."
What's both interesting and encouraging about hearing these gripes coming from a portion of the left is they've started to echo longstanding libertarian criticisms of the American regulatory state.
Government approval processes are overly long, burdensome, and deferential to third-party "stakeholders" for no discernible benefit. Excessive public meeting requirements, done in the name of community input, allow any old gadfly to delay billion-dollar projects. Special interests have erected reams of anti-competitive regulations that only serve to increase costs and strangle choice. The right to earn a living has been replaced with a need to beg for permission for doing anything new.
These "supply-side progressives" are calling to significantly liberalize or even eliminate much of this regulatory morass.
Smith thunders against "the country's broken system of permitting, land use, and development." Liberal blogger Matt Yglesias wants to significantly pare back the environmental review requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act and liberalize immigration until we have "one billion Americans." The Atlantic's Jerusalem Demsas decries America's "permission-slip culture" created by occupational licensing. The New York Times liberal columnist Ezra Klein says plainly that "regulators make it hard to increase supply" of everything from health care technologies to new workers. Everyone hates zoning.
They all want to peel back red tape in service of an "abundance agenda."
Could this be the libertarian moment? Sadly, no.
While they see the flaws of the American state as she exists, these abundance agenda evangelists are still hopelessly chained to the idea that they can change her for the better.
The criticisms of the Biden administration's implementation of CHIPS Act subsidies are a useful illustration of the limits of this worldview.
Supply-side progressives are raising hell over the ways regulatory roadblocks are undermining one of the largest expansions of federal corporate welfare in a generation. But investing huge sums of taxpayer money into semiconductor production is inherently a bad, wasteful idea, child care mandates and union work rules notwithstanding.
Indeed, we've been down this road before.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the U.S. government slapped tariffs on imported semiconductors, helped set up a public-private consortium of semiconductor manufacturers called Sematech, and showered an inflation-adjusted $1.2 billion on the consortium to pump out cutting-edge, globally competitive products.
The results, Reason's Eric Boehm recounted in his 2021 history of Sematech, were less than inspiring. The chips manufactured by Sematech were years behind the market. Companies responded to federal subsidies by slashing their own research budgets.
The venture failed even without having to spend a lot of money complying with union work rules and child care mandates.
Similar examples abound overseas.
No one would describe Communist China as a place where the state is slow to act or the regulatory process has been hijacked by excess public input and veto points. And yet the Chinese Communist Party's industrial policy aimed at boosting their own semiconductor industry has largely been a bust. Beijing is now trying to taper off expensive government subsidies.
The fact is there are pretty hard limits to what the most intelligent government bureaucracies can achieve, even when they're unencumbered by unproductive regulations and special interest carve-outs.
That's certainly the case for something exceedingly complex already, like semiconductor industrial policy. It's also true for slightly more simple things supply-side progressives want the government to do, like build a mess of new transportation infrastructure.
By an interesting coincidence, the same day that Biden's Commerce Department made available the first CHIPS Act grants, his Transportation Department was announcing the first wave of grant awards in a new program: the Reconnecting Communities Pilot Program.
The program is designed to repair the damage done to neighborhoods that were cut in half by the construction of mid-century urban highways. The consensus is that destroying existing, thriving urban neighborhoods (usually with liberal use of eminent domain) to build interstates was a bad idea. Almost everyone who might identify as a supply-side progressive certainly would. But those urban highways are also a relic of a supped-up state that did in fact build things.
California's disastrous high-speed rail is perhaps one of the archetypal examples of the supply-side progressive criticism of American governance: a good idea derailed by cynical environmental lawsuits, overwhelmed and under-experienced bureaucrats, rampant NIMBYism, and political meddling of elected officials.
And yet, even countries that don't have all those particular problems of "state capacity" still end up building a lot of wasteful infrastructure.
Take Spain and its well-earned reputation as Europe's "rail capital." While the Golden State struggles to complete a rail line between Bakersfield and Merced, Spain has managed to add 2,400 miles of high-speed rail lines over the past three decades. Some of these projects came in delayed and over budget, but they still got built. They even connect cities that people actually want to travel between.
And yet, when European Union auditors reviewed the literature on Spanish high-speed rail projects in 2018, they found that the benefits of these projects were almost always wiped out by their costs.
"In reality, some projects have only a limited chance of viability from a social cost-benefit perspective…but they are being built nevertheless," auditors concluded.
Spain can build high-speed rail in that the government can decide a line should go from A to B and it ends up happening mostly on time and on budget. But these projects are still wasteful in that they're not providing benefits in excess of their costs.
Libertarianism has a pretty straightforward way of preventing this from happening. To the greatest extent possible, turn infrastructure over to private firms tapping private capital to build projects with the expectation they'll earn a tidy return from the fees users of that new infrastructure will eventually pay.
If drivers won't pay the tolls to support a new bridge to nowhere, that bridge won't get built. Supply-side progressives don't have nearly as clear of a mechanism for allocating scarce capital effectively, other than whatever sausage-making the political process turns out.
For someone like Klein, it's enough that the government is shifting its spending decisions from subsidizing demand to subsidizing supply. In his Times piece sketching out supply-side progressivism, he approvingly cites several Biden advisors arguing the administration's "transportation, rail, public transit and port investments will reduce efficiency-killing frictions that keep people and goods from getting to markets as quickly as they should….The child and elder care investments will boost the labor supply of caretakers. The educational investments in pre-K and community college will eventually show up as higher productivity as a result of a better-educated work force."
That's a lot of line of items to prioritize!
Trying to do them all at once is a recipe for inefficiency and failure. That's particularly true if you also want private investment to be added to the supply-side equation too. Abundance agenda folks are working at cross purposes.
Take the recently passed $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which included $550 billion in new transportation infrastructure spending above preexisting levels. The goal of the law is to build, and it provides a lot of money to that end.
All that new government spending is having the unintended consequence of raising costs for America's homebuilders. Construction industry analysts note the huge influx of government infrastructure dollars has raised prices for steel, cement, copper, lumber, and other things developers also need to build new housing.
"The housing industry, which has boomed thanks to low mortgage rates, is worried about the competition coming from infrastructure projects," reported Bloomberg in 2021. The low interest rates are now gone, but the inflated materials costs are here.
Notably, this phenomenon of infrastructure spending squeezing out some housing production isn't solely a product of the environmental review laws, union work rules, or Buy America provisions. It's an inherent result of dumping a bunch of government money into building infrastructure while a lot of new housing also needs to be built.
One element of the abundance agenda must give way to the other.
This is why the libertarian insistence on a minimal state and private, profit-seeking allocation of capital across the board is crucial. It does more than just weed out bad individual projects. It also balances competing uses for capital by sending it to the most profitable projects. One project's higher returns are a signal more people value that use of scarce resources than alternative investments.
A mess of government spending totally divorced from earning a return on investment obscures these signals.
Another supply-side progressive answer is to create professional, efficient civil service insulated from excessive public input and political meddling. Such a bureaucracy would forgo wasteful projects and build efficient ones. On the macro level, overall spending is allocated effectively.
But it's hard to see that playing out so long as there's any meaningful democratic input into how public infrastructure dollars, or public dollars generally, are spent. The benefits of new programs will always be apparent, while the costs to society are diffuse and often invisible.
That's particularly true if a bureaucracy is good at what it does. Fewer bad headlines about how project X is delayed by Y years and will cost an additional $Z billion dollars lowers the political risk of spending money on low-value projects.
Lastly, the supply-side progressive faith that bureaucracies will be efficient and benevolent if we remove regulations that allowed special interests to capture them ignores a key insight of public choice theory: that state bureaucracies are themselves a special interest group with priorities beyond maximizing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.
Demsas' otherwise on-point takedown of America's ludicrous, burdensome system of occupational licensing includes this odd defense of government regulation properly conceived.
"Permission-slip governance reflects not the government's strength but its weakness. A strong government well staffed with experts would write clear regulations and enforce them. The government we actually have imposes permission-slip requirements pushed by interest groups and industry, then relies on consumers to pursue private legal remedies if anything goes wrong," she writes. "This is a legacy of Republican attacks on Big Government, which not only constrained the size of the state but diminished its efficacy."
In fact, from the dawn of the regulatory state, interest groups and industry have twisted regulation to their benefit. This wasn't a phenomenon invented by Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich.
Nominally independent agencies have an obvious interest in growing their own power. That leads them to make serious errors in judgment all the time, whether that's the Food and Drug Administration cracking down on vaping or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau inventing and prosecuting financial crimes all on its own.
As Reason's Peter Suderman noted yesterday, many of the problems that abundance agenda supporters decry are also products of past regulatory interventions liberals are mostly united in supporting today.
There's a lot to recommend about the liberal abundance agenda, supply-side progressivism, or whatever you want to call it. It correctly diagnoses many of the current problems with America's overweening regulatory state. Embedded in it is a greater appreciation for the wealth-enhancing effects of markets. It grasps the truism that production has to precede consumption.
At the end of the day, I'd prefer that if a government wastes billions on a high-speed rail project, it actually manages to build a high-speed rail project.
And for lots of supporters of the abundance agenda, there's a pleasingly individualistic focus to their political economy.
Thompson writes, "The abundance agenda aims for growth, not because growth is an end but because it is the best means to achieve the ends that we care about: more comfortable lives, with more power to do what we want, with more time devoted to what we love."
The libertarian critique of this vision is that individualistic ends require individualistic means—that is, a free market largely free from state intervention. Supply-side progressives see a big government as a problem and solution. That's a problem in and of itself.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Look at all that praise for supply-side progressives. So what if they want less regulation and more economic freedom? They’re the enemy! So by definition they are wrong. True libertarians must now oppose deregulation at all costs. Principals, not principles.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,500 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,500 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link——————————————->>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
What deregulation are you talking about?
Except they really don’t. RTFA.
If there are DIE requirements, it’s all worth it.
So, basically, the government is setting up potential chip makers to fail.
China says “thank you”.
Google pays a $100 hourly salary. For a 40-hour work week, my most recent online earnings were $3,500. My younger brother’s buddy claims that he at-90 works for about 30 hours per week and makes an average salary of $12,265. I’m amazed at how straightforward things used to be. More details may be found
.
.
More information→→→→→ https://dollarwork9.blogspot.com
And by the way, the chip manufacturers are free to not take these subsidies if they don’t want to have to provide all the extras.
Because it comes down to this:
If the extra costs of providing childcare, being subjected to constant federal environmental review and sharing “excess profits” is more than the subsidy, then this will be an extremely simple business calculus.
Why do you think they won’t have to abide the government’s edicts without the subsidy?
The thing being subsidized isn’t national security in a critical industry.
It’s other shit. That will be just profitable enough to be worth doing, but not meaningfully change the supply chain.
Oh, I dunno, look at the overwhelming majority of “defense” contracting. Requirements to share “excessive” profit are a guarantee that they’ll nerd-wrestle the numbers to show there is no profit, even if that means vast wasteful spending.
Libertarianism has a pretty straightforward way of preventing this from happening. To the greatest extent possible, turn infrastructure over to private firms tapping private capital to build projects with the expectation they’ll earn a tidy return
Somebody read my comment on Marc Scribner’s train wreck of an article from this morning.
The staff consider the comments to be an embarrassment. They certainly don’t read them. And if conservatives get their wish and abolish Section 230, you can expect the comments sections where they spew hate all day long to go bye bye.
you mean like the comment sections on nearly every major newspaper have all but disappeared WITH section 230?
Yes, but for different reasons. No pun intended.
Here’s a pretty good article on Section 230. Not “good” because “I agree with everything the author says” but “good” because the author seems to be muddling through the confusion about section 230, and he seems to sort of kind of admit that we have all of these problems NOW with section 230, but they might… possibly, sort of kind of maybe get a little bit worse without section 230. To wit:
1. Twitter (and the other big tech firms) have publicly stated that a comment or post doesn’t have to violate their terms of service– that they can (and will… AND HAVE) taken content down that (according to Yoel Roth) has rubbed up against the edges of their TOS, but yet didn’t actually violate it.
2. #METOO was slowly widely recognized to be a vicious method of canceling and taking down accused abusers with the mere posting of a tweet, or an article in Medium about a bad date. Almost all of mainstream internet has basically devolved into a culture war tit-for-tat, all based on complaint forms, many of which were submitted by the federal government.
3. This has been my beef about “omg, what will we do without the
communications decency actsection 230! All we’ll have is that weak-assed first amendment! WE HAVE THIS SHIT NOW!4. *cough*Gawker*cough*. Legitimate user complaints like… *checks notes*:
“I don’t like this vaccine mandate.”
“I think COVID may have not been natural.”
“I got the vaccine and nearly died.”
I mean, without section 230, Google might ban all firearms sales links!
I just put “guns for sale” into Google and got a bunch of links.
They banned them from their “google marketplace” (which I admit I never used… for anything really).
I’ve done my fair share of reading on the subject as well, and the only people I see who oppose Section 230 have a political axe to grind. That’s just my observations. Maybe there are opponents of Section 230 who don’t feel aggrieved over what they feel to be political censorship, but so far I haven’t seen any. And feelings aren’t a great basis for legislation.
This is false. Blatantly false. LGBTQ activists have fought the protections due to censorship dumbass.
Keep simping for censorship though.
I’m for repealing 230 on the assumption that it will disincentivize the existence of social media altogether.
Name one good thing to come out of social media. What, exactly, has Facebook ever done for anyone? Help friends schedule get-togethers? There are a thousand apps that can do that without also facilitating coup attempts.
Here’s an example of shit-bag’s connection with reality:
Tony|9.7.17 @ 4:43PM|#
“I don’t consider taxing and redistribution to be either forced or charity.”
Yep, taxes aren’t “forced”.
There’s something deeply wrong with you.
Fortunately, it ain’t your lack of perception of reality.
Fuck off and die, shit-bag.
There is a strong implication throughout this article that the US manufacturing capability is down, down, down. This is false. The US manufacturing output has been rising since forever; what is down is manufacturing employment, because productivity has been increasing just as long.
Idiots who whine about bringing back manufacturing jobs should instead be whining about bringing back farming jobs, where there is a lot more room to go back to the 90% farming economy we had 250 years ago.
True. American manufacturing output has doubled while requiring only a third as many people. Not only are manufacturing employees more productive, they’re paid a lot more too.
Unfortunately facts never get in the way of the narrative. So expect politicians from both parties to continue to wax about the romantic days of doing repetitive tasks all day for a pittance.
We need to pay people to dig holes and pay other people to fill those holes back up.
The US manufacturing output has been rising since forever; what is down is manufacturing employment, because productivity has been increasing just as long.
I’m doing some research on this, because I suspect the “US manufacturing” sector is more complicated than it looks.
From a few minutes of googling, I find this:
Manufacturing refers to industries belonging to ISIC divisions 15-37
What I’m trying to figure out is, if the firm I work for is classified as ISIC 15-37.
If it turns out the firm I work for is classified as an “American ISIC 15-37 manufacturer” then that would encompass manufacturers that literally don’t manufacture in the US.
it’s going to discredit industrial policy for a generation.”
At least he found the silver lining, although it’s amusing he presents it as a negative effect. Imagine expressing regret that a space mission which could only be successful if the solar system were geocentric expressing regret not at the failure of the mission but at the fact that this failure would discredit geocentrism.
I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
This is where i started………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Politicians just cannot help undermining their own goals. Especially the ones on the far Left, who need what industrial businesses provide, but still despise their existence. There is an element of spite in these mandates.
Here’s how not to do industrial policy:
Adam Ozimek
@ModeledBehavior
CHIPs details to raise costs:
1) Mandated daycare
2) Davis Bacon pay regulations
3) Buy American
4) Consult, engage, coordinate with unions
5) NEPA compliance
6) Source materials from small, minority, and women owned business
Note that these people never criticize these policies impact on private sector initiatives. Why does government policy deserve to be privileged in this way? Certainly their own arguments, that government is less wasteful, is contradicted by this position. What this discrepancy reveals is the underlying principle that government controlled service is better for its own sake regardless of outcome. Otherwise they would be fine applying the same obstacles and judging the results.
This is why Reason, Suderman made a similar point yesterday so this is a coordinated effort, is exactly backward in its conclusions. They think criticism even in this limited circumstance means these left wingers are worthy of support. But in reality these people have internalized principles completely contradictory to libertarian principle. It makes me wonder why Reason is so eager to support leftists they embrace principles completely antithetical to those they claim.
Do you have any thoughts on industrial policy, or just about people?
Two questions:
1. Does anyone have any idea why sarc is so narcissistic he believes he decides what other people are allowed to comment on?
2. Can anyone figure out why he believes media criticism is illegitimate?
What a bizarre world we live in.
1. Sarc is a prime example of a hypocrite. He hates it when people point out his double standards and lack of principles. When people point it out he claims victimization. He is a true and utter moron.
2. Because those he hates the most were right about censorship, and covid, and a plethora of other topics over the last few years. But he can’t admit he was wrong. So he defends leftist narratives still even after being proven wrong.
He literally simps 2000s neocons now while defending the left. I could post his statements and Lincoln Party statements unattributed and you wouldn’t be able to guess who said it.
But also on 2., he is fine with the fox news lawsuits. Because of 1., his lack of principles.
It makes me feel embarrassed when you guys all parrot the same Facebook feed lies all day and think that your silly conspiracy theories about covid and your nonsensical crusade against the free speech of private companies are the sum total of politics in America.
It makes me feel weird. Stop it. Unjack your brain from Facebook and FOX News and read a real newspaper. Please. I’m tired of feeling bad for you.
What should make you feel embarrassed is all those covid ‘conspiracies’ turning out to be true.
Fuck off and die asshole.
How nice it must be to simply tell yourself you’re right and never require a single shred of actual evidence in the matter. What a carefree childlike existence you must lead.
How nice it must be to project your narcissism and stupidity onto others.
Fuck off and die, shit-bag
“…1. Does anyone have any idea why sarc is so narcissistic he believes he decides what other people are allowed to comment on?
2. Can anyone figure out why he believes media criticism is illegitimate?…”
Alcohol and abysmal stupidity are sufficient.
The Hoover Dam cost $700mm in 2021 dollars and was built in five years. Today we couldn’t even build it and the cost would be in the trillions.
You didnt factor in using illegal immigrant children as the labor.
I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
This is where i started………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
The real problem with the abundance agenda is that abundance doesn’t exist. It’s a fiction created by activists because if it were true it would justify their political preferences, creating a result I call “debate reality”. Since their plans don’t exist in the real world they cannot be proven false. When their plans don’t work they use their media and academia control to redirect blame or change the subject as they did with Obamacare.
A more nuanced take on “Communism doesn’t know how”.
>>Everyone acknowledges what we are trying to do here
ya. smells terrible.
“True abundance requires a minimal state” … because GUNS don’t make sh*t…. ‘Government’ is nothing but a monopoly of gun-force. (i.e. The only tool in it’s toolbox that separates it from any other entity). Thinking that GUNS make sh*t is a criminal career. Their only asset to humanity is to ensure everyone Liberty and Justice.
Where the F is the Constitutional Authority for this massive gangster theft? There is no authority for “Crony Socialism”; the nation is battling with a GANG of thugs that have somehow been elected by like minded thugs.
The trick is in the definition of “smaller” government. To Jesus-Caucus MAGA fascisti, small is abundant police goons fanning your pockets, kicking in your door, shooting your dog, tapping your phone, banning your plants, forcing your daughter to reproduce at gunpoint, bombing other countries and confiscating your home through asset-forfeiture to buy more judges and politicians. To East-German Democratic communists, small means your paycheck after the government deducts 75% of it to pay for narcs, phonetaps, smelly buses, derailments, blackouts, traffic cops, weaponized officious bureaucrats and slimy congressmen, building inspectors, solar crap, wind junk, mayors and boards of liability-proof looters.
I believe that free markets are essential to an efficient, free society. The problem of libertarianism is its dogmatic insistence that this is the only constituent of such.
In principle, the function of the market is to efficiently set prices in an environment of scarcity. You don’t want a government trying to plan everyone’s day because no central planner can account for the complexity of a large society.
But government plays an even more essential role, and the horsecrap libertarianism tries to sell relies so much on weaselly lies, you have to know deep down that it’s not a coherent ideology so much as the relentless use of sophistry to nudge policy toward your own interests.
The market is just people going about their lives. The very money that lubricates transactions is printed by government so we don’t have to barter. The rules and regulations are there to protect people from harm. Redistributive policy, taxes, exist to create broad incentives and correct for runaway pathologies inherent to markets. Government outlays are not “distortions” to the market; they are when government acts as a customer in it, on behalf of the people.
For centuries I have been asking libertarianism one thing: stop defending your policy preferences on some quasi-religious dogmatism so simplistic not even children are buying it. Defend each one on their own merits, just like the rest of us have to do. If a tax cut for Charles Koch is good for society, you should be able to explain why specifically. Thus far, after many decades of trying, all you’ve ever come up with is a lie about its positive macroeconomic and fiscal effects.
If you can’t defend it by referring to its social good, you don’t deserve to get it. If you have to lie to get what you want, that makes you a bad person, again, as any child could tell you.
“I believe that free markets are essential to an efficient, free society. The problem of libertarianism is its dogmatic insistence that this is the only constituent of such…”
Not long ago, you were claiming that free markets didn’t exist. Now you just want them regulated since, well, YOU want them regulated.
I don’t.
The Tony comment…
—————————————————————
Central Planning isn’t possible and is bad.
But… Here’s my central planning ideas and any arguments to my central planning ideas is “quasi-religious dogmatism so simplistic not even children are buying it”..
And P.S. Tax Cuts are theft and a violation of social good. Stop lying to keep you earnings….
————————————————-
The narcissism of [WE] gangster Gov-Gun packing thieves who will blabber on endlessly to insist “armed-theft” is really a justice system for the people.
Guess what Tony…. Even after all your artistic propaganda; GUNS still don’t make sh*t.
“Redistributive policy, taxes, exist to create broad incentives and correct for runaway pathologies inherent to markets. Government outlays are not “distortions” to the market; they are when government acts as a customer in it, on behalf of the people.”
You took the incomplete, naive concept of government from middle school social studies and built your intellectual life upon it, to the exclusion of the harsh reality that adults learn and understand. Yours is the comfortable perspective of protected children. Enjoy it, but don’t be surprised that others grow up before they die.
Congratulations on saying less of substance than Sevo. Quite an achievement.
If you believe that government is inherently bad, I fear you will vote for people who will prove you right. And that’s just what you do.
Don’t worry: lots of people never want to grow up, and they do ok, mostly. You probably will, too.
My libertarian phase took place in 9th grade.
I’m just glad I don’t have to borrow money to buy any home in Oklahoma when I could just pay cash.
I can’t believe you like money too! We should hang out.
It’s a shame you’re too stupid to earn any.
Maybe one of these days, they’ll let you take the 10th.
“Congratulations on saying less of substance than Sevo…”
Need it in single syllables, shit-bag?
“….a tax cut for Charles Koch…..” is none of your fucking business.
Stop being such a resentful little bitch. Maybe it’ll help with your misery.
Tax policy is my business as a citizen, you sniveling monarchist.
The Koch family made its fortune by selling its services to the Stalin and Hitler regimes. Fred came back from Europe deeply paranoid about communism… and in love with fascism. The three countries Daddy Koch admired at the time? Germany, Italy, Japan.
The sons just inherited that genocide wealth, got tutored by a Nazi, then decided climate change wasn’t real with all their Nazi education credentials… for all of us. To our possible doom as a species.
Should that one guy get to dictate the course of American history for 100 years and longer? Is that constituent of a philosophy of individual liberty to you?
Eh, probably.
In case you missed it up-thread, here’s an example of shit-bag’s connection with reality:
Tony|9.7.17 @ 4:43PM|# “I don’t consider taxing and redistribution to be either forced or charity.”
Yep, taxes aren’t “forced”.
Fuck off and die, shit-bag.
And then they built the best products in the world in unfashionable industries, and made a lot of money doing so. They also treat their employees quite well, if not a bit paternalisticly. Many, if not most, of the employees actually like working for them.
Tony lies almost as much as turd does,
The “Cliff Notes” version of this article can be summarized as, “No, supply-side progressives cannot FIX their abundance agenda problems because they continue to insist on protecting the people from the evil corporations they want to throw money at while favoring protected classes (i.e. key Democratic Party coalition demographics) while being totally clueless concerning the fundamental principles of economics and ignorant about the law of unintended consequences and chaotic systems.”
Joe Biden Policy:
Abundance comes from printing trillions of dollars
Abundance is great with ships sitting offshore
Abundance takes massive regulation
Abundance comes from taxation
Abundance comes from government handouts
Abundance comes from government censorship
Abundance comes from green energy
True abundance comes from China
If you disagree with my policies on abundance, you are a fascist!
I earn $100 per hour while taking risks and travelling to remote parts of the world. I worked remotely last week while in Rome, Monte Carlo, and eventually Paris. I’m back in the USA this week. I only perform simple activities from this one excellent website. see it,
Click Here to Copy……>>>> https://www.join.hiring9.com
I am unsure exactly why the politicians think that we need more chip manufacturing plants. We have a lot of them already, and several of the big IC manufacturers announced commitments to build new plants in Red states, after several Blue states became too inhospitable to manufacturing.
This is very likely going to be an abysmal failure. Chip companies have to be nimble, innovative, and extremely focused on quality. So, the government’s plan is to throw $billion$ into the industry, and hobbling the companies that participate in their program with almost every progressive wet dream that they can think of that will interfere with those requirements. They are required to Buy American, even when the best equipment, the equipment required for the accuracy required for bleeding edge ICs, is foreign. Back, two decades ago when I worked in the industry, the best etchers were German, followed by Japanese. Minority contracting screams lower quality for more money. The key to making money in IC manufacturing is getting and keeping keeping yields high. That’s what the ChiComs cannot do, even if their economy depends on it. We are talking hundreds of millions of transistors on individual ICs, with many ICs per die. If the lines aren’t precisely right, at the required feature size, you end up with shorts or gaps, making that part of the IC inoperable. Back when I was working there, the engineers (one of them one of my brothers) were dealing with quantum tunneling effects of electrons (essentially due to their wave/particle duality). They have been pushing the limits of physics for a long time, and if they screw up just a little bit, the IC is worthless.
Government is run by politicians and burrow-craps. To expect ANYTHING good to come of it is pure insanity!
Get the government OUT OF THE WAY and the country will prosper!