Last paragraph is the only part that's wrong. The dollar has been the world's reserve currency since WW2, well before all the "hollowing out".
"21st century jobs" - a nice "means what you want it to" phrase, but most likely you mean service sector rather than manufacturing? Does the 21st century not use manufactured goods? Or do we in fact depend more on manufactured goods than ever?
The sneer is unwarranted. Someone is doing those jobs in the 21st century. If the USA isn't doing them, that makes the trade in the fruits of those jobs vulnerable to the unwinding of globalization, vulnerable to shocks to supply chains such as the ever-increasing war in the world. We're talking about a house of cards here.
The administration isn't wrong to oppose sending manufacturing overseas. They're just mostly very stupid in what they want to do about it.
I re-read that paragraph and yes, I'm a bit vague in my terms, but I think the point I was trying to get at stands: Vance and people who think like him (e.g. Peter Navarro) are trying to restore the type of jobs we had in the '70s, but our economy now is different and more prosperous. Vance's obsession is mostly not about strategic goods -- those could be on-shored through industrial policy. We're mostly talking about consumer goods, which are primarily responsible for our trade imbalance. And I think it's fine to let those jobs go abroad and accept that our economy now has a very large services/management sector and we don't need to manufacture everything domestically.
Brah, China has these things called 'Dark Factories' so called because they don't need lights because they don't have workers. The technicians just go in and change a few settings and then this factory just plops out tractors and motorcycles. Why do you think BYD can churn out a $10k luxury car? It's time to get with the times. Manufacturing 'jobs' are becoming as obsolete as telegram operator.
But for the sake of argument, let's say they did. It would be all the more reason for the USA to reshore manufacturing. After all, one of the big advantages China has historically is a more exploitable workforce with lower wages and fewer protections. If that's no longer a factor, then that advantage of offshoring is gone as soon as the "Dark Factories" get built domestically.
It's risible that anyone thinks there are no or very little "manufacturing" jobs in America. Comparing value, China has about double in manufacturing than the US, but it's a quantity vs quality thing. American manufacturing is for big things like airplanes and tractors and cars and ships whereas China is more component level manufacturing.
So what? You don't get partial credit for having part of the manufacturing process. If you have an airplane factory and you can't source the components for the airplane, you just aren't going to make the airplane.
China is a strong candidate for being on the other side of the next major war the USA will have to fight. Sending manufacturing jobs there was a bonkers national strategy.
OK, but there is no such thing as one country or organization, whatever, having total control of the supply chain, so not getting partial credit for having part of a manufacturing process is nonsensical. Not being able to source components for the airplane is of course a problem, but only having component level manufacturing is arguably a bigger problem since the whole point of manufacturing is to deliver a product to markets that have end-uses for consumers.
There is in fact such a thing as total control of the supply chain. It was quite common before globalization! But the next best thing is to source from your allies and have the capacity to retool for the rest in a hurry if you need to. The USA isn't close to that, either.
I know it’s a cliche to talk about how republicans call everything socialism to the point it’s a cliche to point it out, only matched by the cliche of centre-left boomers to then call the republicans communists, which means im sorta doing two of the three cliches, but I genuinely think Vance and the rest of the MAGA supposed thought leaders are cherrypicking the most annoying parts of contemporary socialist activism - the “this thing I dont understand is capitalism and is bad because stuff isnt free and a guy I dont like is getting paid for it” whinging by its advocates - and implementing it into their MAGAnomics philosophy. Just saying “I shouldnt be paying for things cause that guy’s a poopyhead” but still insisting youre for a free market is a confused combination
Well, it's also the "democratic socialists" who call pretty much anything socialism even if it has nothing to do with public control of the means of production.
Fair take, Maurer. I guess we’ll also take AOC’s previous proposals from the “Robert Mugabe School of Economics” as the inevitable and ardent policy from the other side of the aisle.
Hasn’t Vance, for years now, said that GDP is a pernicious measurement while (incorrectly) lauding tariffs’ use in reducing trade deficits?
GDP might be imperfect. I guess one _might_ argue it’s bad. But then to sacrifice it for trade deficits reduction is just beyond galaxy-brained (quasar-brained?)
A big part of why we've had two Trump administrations is their willingness to signal that jobs in Middle America are some kind of priority. Whether they have a plan or can deliver those jobs is of less consequence than the idea that they pretend like they're important, which is more than you can say about the last several administrations. The alternative to making toasters in the hinterlands is the AI/tech hellscape developing in California. To many, that doesn't even seem like a choice.
You should up your standards some more. Viable is not enough. The candidate needs to be sane. Needs to avoid committing different mistakes that ruin the country in ways that can't be undone.
Hmm I think it’s simpler than that. I think it’s a crypto trade. Whatever may happen if the US loses reserves currency status, bitcoin will go up (even if the Renminbi ultimately takes the place, or part of the place, of the dollar)
I don't know anything else about Just Dance Vance and his thoughts on the USD being the reserve currency other than the above clip. But just in that clip, Vance is arguing that the reserve currency enables the out of control borrowing and spending the federal government has engaged in for decades. He's not totally wrong, but it ignores Public Choice Theory, which states politicians operate from self-interest, not the public good. The #1 most effective way for a politician to get elected is to promise public treasury funds to be distributed to his voters if elected.
What Vance is saying is since the USD is the reserve currency America has the special privilege of being allowed to borrow at a lower rate than other countries and that cheap finance allows for higher than normal spending. But even while the USD has been reserve currency, the rates the federal government has borrowed at has fluctuated, and our credit rating was knocked down in 2011. As long as politicians use the disbursement of public funds to get elected, the borrowing and spending will remain out of control, irregardless of reserve currency status.
To be fair, they are doing their best to weaken the dollar, just by being irresponsible and profligate.
Last paragraph is the only part that's wrong. The dollar has been the world's reserve currency since WW2, well before all the "hollowing out".
"21st century jobs" - a nice "means what you want it to" phrase, but most likely you mean service sector rather than manufacturing? Does the 21st century not use manufactured goods? Or do we in fact depend more on manufactured goods than ever?
The sneer is unwarranted. Someone is doing those jobs in the 21st century. If the USA isn't doing them, that makes the trade in the fruits of those jobs vulnerable to the unwinding of globalization, vulnerable to shocks to supply chains such as the ever-increasing war in the world. We're talking about a house of cards here.
The administration isn't wrong to oppose sending manufacturing overseas. They're just mostly very stupid in what they want to do about it.
I re-read that paragraph and yes, I'm a bit vague in my terms, but I think the point I was trying to get at stands: Vance and people who think like him (e.g. Peter Navarro) are trying to restore the type of jobs we had in the '70s, but our economy now is different and more prosperous. Vance's obsession is mostly not about strategic goods -- those could be on-shored through industrial policy. We're mostly talking about consumer goods, which are primarily responsible for our trade imbalance. And I think it's fine to let those jobs go abroad and accept that our economy now has a very large services/management sector and we don't need to manufacture everything domestically.
Brah, China has these things called 'Dark Factories' so called because they don't need lights because they don't have workers. The technicians just go in and change a few settings and then this factory just plops out tractors and motorcycles. Why do you think BYD can churn out a $10k luxury car? It's time to get with the times. Manufacturing 'jobs' are becoming as obsolete as telegram operator.
Pretty sure they don't actually have those.
But for the sake of argument, let's say they did. It would be all the more reason for the USA to reshore manufacturing. After all, one of the big advantages China has historically is a more exploitable workforce with lower wages and fewer protections. If that's no longer a factor, then that advantage of offshoring is gone as soon as the "Dark Factories" get built domestically.
It's risible that anyone thinks there are no or very little "manufacturing" jobs in America. Comparing value, China has about double in manufacturing than the US, but it's a quantity vs quality thing. American manufacturing is for big things like airplanes and tractors and cars and ships whereas China is more component level manufacturing.
So what? You don't get partial credit for having part of the manufacturing process. If you have an airplane factory and you can't source the components for the airplane, you just aren't going to make the airplane.
China is a strong candidate for being on the other side of the next major war the USA will have to fight. Sending manufacturing jobs there was a bonkers national strategy.
OK, but there is no such thing as one country or organization, whatever, having total control of the supply chain, so not getting partial credit for having part of a manufacturing process is nonsensical. Not being able to source components for the airplane is of course a problem, but only having component level manufacturing is arguably a bigger problem since the whole point of manufacturing is to deliver a product to markets that have end-uses for consumers.
There is in fact such a thing as total control of the supply chain. It was quite common before globalization! But the next best thing is to source from your allies and have the capacity to retool for the rest in a hurry if you need to. The USA isn't close to that, either.
I know it’s a cliche to talk about how republicans call everything socialism to the point it’s a cliche to point it out, only matched by the cliche of centre-left boomers to then call the republicans communists, which means im sorta doing two of the three cliches, but I genuinely think Vance and the rest of the MAGA supposed thought leaders are cherrypicking the most annoying parts of contemporary socialist activism - the “this thing I dont understand is capitalism and is bad because stuff isnt free and a guy I dont like is getting paid for it” whinging by its advocates - and implementing it into their MAGAnomics philosophy. Just saying “I shouldnt be paying for things cause that guy’s a poopyhead” but still insisting youre for a free market is a confused combination
Well, it's also the "democratic socialists" who call pretty much anything socialism even if it has nothing to do with public control of the means of production.
I mean, government run grocery stores sounds pretty socialist to me.
Sure, but that’s 0.1% of Mamdani’s agenda and 0.01% of DSA agenda.
I legit saw a tweet that called giving kids candy when they go trick or treating an example of socialism
Fair take, Maurer. I guess we’ll also take AOC’s previous proposals from the “Robert Mugabe School of Economics” as the inevitable and ardent policy from the other side of the aisle.
Hasn’t Vance, for years now, said that GDP is a pernicious measurement while (incorrectly) lauding tariffs’ use in reducing trade deficits?
GDP might be imperfect. I guess one _might_ argue it’s bad. But then to sacrifice it for trade deficits reduction is just beyond galaxy-brained (quasar-brained?)
A big part of why we've had two Trump administrations is their willingness to signal that jobs in Middle America are some kind of priority. Whether they have a plan or can deliver those jobs is of less consequence than the idea that they pretend like they're important, which is more than you can say about the last several administrations. The alternative to making toasters in the hinterlands is the AI/tech hellscape developing in California. To many, that doesn't even seem like a choice.
Another reason to pray that the Democrats field a viable Presidential candidate in 2028.
(btw, would it be up to the brain trust of Bessent and Lutnick to implement such a policy?)
You should up your standards some more. Viable is not enough. The candidate needs to be sane. Needs to avoid committing different mistakes that ruin the country in ways that can't be undone.
Ok, how about “electable?”
That's the same thing. You trolling or something?
Ok, how about “who does everything Lucid Horizon tells them to do?”
Jeez, take it easy.
oh, you two 😂
Hmm I think it’s simpler than that. I think it’s a crypto trade. Whatever may happen if the US loses reserves currency status, bitcoin will go up (even if the Renminbi ultimately takes the place, or part of the place, of the dollar)
And yet, because of Trumpism, manufacturing jobs are down since 2024.
Add constantly changing tariffs to key inputs to American manufacturing, and American manufacturing suffers.
I don't know anything else about Just Dance Vance and his thoughts on the USD being the reserve currency other than the above clip. But just in that clip, Vance is arguing that the reserve currency enables the out of control borrowing and spending the federal government has engaged in for decades. He's not totally wrong, but it ignores Public Choice Theory, which states politicians operate from self-interest, not the public good. The #1 most effective way for a politician to get elected is to promise public treasury funds to be distributed to his voters if elected.
What Vance is saying is since the USD is the reserve currency America has the special privilege of being allowed to borrow at a lower rate than other countries and that cheap finance allows for higher than normal spending. But even while the USD has been reserve currency, the rates the federal government has borrowed at has fluctuated, and our credit rating was knocked down in 2011. As long as politicians use the disbursement of public funds to get elected, the borrowing and spending will remain out of control, irregardless of reserve currency status.
Why does Jorkin Dapeen Vance say anything? Because Peter Thiel tells him to. Duh.
What scares me more is if AOC is his opponent (I doubt that TL,DR) her response to that will be "that's so crazy!"