Both Canada and Mexico are guilty of this. For years they would import products and do some light assembly and label it as Made in Canada or Mexico. Since Canada gives China Most Favored Nation status, importers can avoid duties and export into the USA since there is a Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA). It took a while for US Customs to crack down on this but it finally did and they now pay very close attention to where the origin of the item was. Unfortunately it went on long enough to destroy many American industries. Canada and Mexico made 100's of billions of these schemes at the USA's expense.
Is the problem Canada and Mexico, or is it corporations and business elites exploiting loopholes and abusing the system? Manufacturing in Canada was destroyed by competition in China.
The root issue is the unchecked market power of businesses and the complete lack of repercussions for corporations and business elites that destroy industries, social systems, and deplete natural resources—without accountability for long-term consequences.
You could also make the opposite argument. If you want to manufacture things in the US, the real estate costs too much because of artificial housing scarcity, the tax system favors international supply chains over domestic ones, the regulatory environment favors large incumbents over small/new companies, etc. And if you make it disfavorable to manufacture things in the US, you create the incentive for corporations to do whatever they have to do to manufacture it somewhere else.
Don't think of corporations as having agency. Think of them like beasts that have to be herded into the field where you want them. If all your cows are in the neighbor's field, it's not the cows that you should blame and yelling at the cows is not going to help you.
You're speaking my language. Incentive-based programming of behavior drives optimization for rewards. For example, giant anticompetitive firms dominating our economies create corporate environments that shape executives to prioritize short-term profits by exploiting their undue influence to inflate their own compensation. This behavior depletes natural wealth, sacrifices long-term opportunities to more competitive firms abroad, and even jeopardizes their companies’ sustainability. Boeing and Intel are prime examples of how executives optimizing for short-term gains leave behind destructive long-term legacies.
Governments, too, create regulatory, taxation, and broader economic frameworks that influence incentives and shape behavior.
I feel like the biggest problems are legislative incompetence and corruption. You have people proposing laws without considering how people will respond to them, or choosing a "compromise" authored by the perpetrators of the original offense.
People say things like "corporate profits are too high, we need to tax them more" but the actual reasons corporate profits are high are lax antitrust enforcement and regulatory capture and the proposed tax increase would apply predominantly to domestic businesses, increase the incentives for offshoring and create even more advantage for large international corporations. But tax increases are popular in Washington because then they get more money to transfer to cronies, so it keeps getting proposed as a "solution" instead of solving the actual problems.
I actually wrote an article that you might be interested in. It connects competition policy, market power, and social unrest. If you’re interested, feel free to take a look -- I’d be happy to hear your thoughts. https://thecommongoodchronicles.substack.com/p/an-assassinat...
Higher taxes for the absurdly rich/corporations could be a good start if the money was put to good use, but taxes ultimately don't solve the underlying issue.
I agree that the core issue is antitrust policy -- and it doesn't have to be this way and wasn't always like this. After the Great Depression, antitrust enforcement ushered in an economic golden age during the 1950s and 60s, boosting prosperity across all socioeconomic groups and lifting lower-income groups the fastest by enhancing competition and preventing concentrations of market power.
Later, regulators embraced 'trickle-down economics' and 'corporate efficiencies,' enabling the rise of giant firms that overpower governments and laws. This shift has led to historically low profits, stagnant growth, declining productivity, and soaring income inequality.
Now the rules-based systems have been co-opted by these giant firms that exploit their market power to subvert democracy and shape laws to serve their interests (and further entrench their undue influence) at the expense of society.
> Unprecedented inequality has unleashed volcanic forces beneath society’s fragile surface, threatening to erupt in violent social unrest. Corporations and elites have exploited workers, unchecked, for so long and to such an extreme degree that the masses, consumed by contempt, are now cheering the execution of a CEO.
I think this is missing a piece.
Corporations and the government are together as a corrupt system (_______ industrial complex etc.) and then people get mad about it, but many of the problems are structural (i.e. insufficient checks and balances against corruption) so you can't put the blame on any specific person or just replace one evil CEO or Senator and be solved. But that's what people want -- a personified enemy to fight, a simple solution -- so it's what demagogues offer them. They tell them to blame the CEO because it gives people a target for their ire, when the actual problem is that you have to change -- and in order to do that, first understand -- the structures that led things to be this way.
But most people don't have time to read a thousand page healthcare bill to figure out just what's in it that causes things to be this way, so when some talking heads tell them to be mad at the CEOs, they get mad at the CEOs. Which doesn't fix the problem, and that only makes them even madder.
> Afterwards, I worked at the intersection of data science and antitrust law to support collective action litigations.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that employer-based labor unions are useless.
When the employer is in a competitive market, the employer already has little to give in negotiations because the competition is already forcing them to give anything they don't give to labor as wages to customers (i.e. also labor) as competitive prices.
When the employer is a monopolist, at best the union is going to extract part of the monopoly rent, but not all of it, and the monopolist's customers who aren't also employees are still getting screwed. Meanwhile that union then has the perverse incentive to defend the monopoly rather than trying to destroy it, because they're getting part of the monopoly rent, which is a disaster.
Conversely, suppose that local land owners are conspiring to capture zoning boards to keep housing prices high and screwing over local laborers who then can't afford to buy and have to pay high rents. Is unionizing the property management companies going to solve this? Of course not, they wouldn't even be representing most of the people being screwed over and their expected behavior would be to try to negotiate higher wages for the property management employees etc. rather than advocating for zoning reform.
Which hints at what people should be doing instead: Political organizing. Not for a party, but for issues. Get all the tenants and the would-be homeowners who are stuck living with their parents together to pay dues to an organization to oppose politicians who resist zoning reform. Get them out of office. Publish voter guides and use the dues to buy political advertising. Do the same thing for trust busting and getting rid of certificate of need laws etc.
Because that's the problem. Monopolists and the corporations siphoning tax dollars out of the corrupt government are doing this, and you're not.
the real problem is this poorly planned effort to make the US a manufacturing nation via political fiat in the face of all reason rather than accepting economic realities about comparative advantage in manufacturing
The US was once a manufacturing powerhouse and, in theory, could become one again. Working-class people understandably want their jobs back, and you can’t blame them for being taken in by false promises to bring those jobs back.
But the harsh reality is that creating a regulatory, taxation, and broader economic landscape attractive to manufacturing would inevitably threaten elites and firms at the top of the economic hierarchy. While there’s nothing wrong with that -- in fact, it’s likely healthy for the economy -- it won’t happen[1]. Those elites and anticompetitive firms abuse their undue influence to subvert democracy and shape laws in order to further entrench their market power.
[1] Or more precisely, it won't happen soon. It's pretty clear that the era we're in is coming to an end but change will likely be slow unless there's a surprise shock to the system.
On a tangent....I remember the only place you could get a coffee in Texas was Waffle House or Denny's. In the early 90's the DFW area didn't even know what an espresso was. Starbucks finally came around 1995 and it was such a joy. Now there are some amazing cafes serving amazing coffee, especially in college towns like Denton.
The hero who revealed to the American public that their own government was secretly treating them like hostile foreigners and lying about it to our faces? And that everyone who collaborated to build the collection infrastructure violated the oath they swore to uphold the constitution, given that the mere collection itself was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge?
That's not going rogue, that was the most heroic and patriotic thing anyone in his shoes could possibly do.
I could have told you everything Snowden told you back in 2001. It was no secret that every phone call and every txt along with all your mail was being scanned and archived.
Everything he revealed was already revealed years earlier, it's just no one really cared or was paying attention in 2000-2001.
I don't think he's a traitor, especially if you consider the intent of his disclosures and the care he took to make sure that only the info that needed to be disclosed was. I suppose we can agree to disagree on that topic.
But "cowardice" - that claim is just mind-boggling. What he did, even if you disagree with his motivations, required self sacrifice and bravery. Fleeing (what he believes to be) unjust laws that would punish him for his work is not at all cowardly.
I agree. Snowden's most traitorous act IMHO seems to have been mistakenly assuming that Beijing and the government of Hong Kong could afford to antagonize the national-security establishment in Washington to the extent of letting him reside in Hong Kong.
In the country he was transiting through en-route to his final destination in South America, before POTUS deliberately and specifically revoked his passport after ensuring Snowden had landed at his layover airport, in order to construct and disseminate the false narrative you're currently regurgitating.
In hindsight, given what happened to Julian Assange, it turns out to have been a very lucky thing for Snowden that the US State Department revoked his passport before he was able to actually arrive in Ecuador.
While the State Department stranding him in Russia means that chronically uniformed folks will forever call the guy names like "Russian plant", at least he's very unlikely to ever be extradited.
Fair point. The US Federal Government certainly hasn't had any moral qualms with shadowy assassination plots, to say nothing of blatantly covering up illegal, geneva-convention-violating murders conducted by US Federal Government employees in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.
He did break the law and all, means to an end isn't a good path unfortnately when you have no power. There were options to take to whistle blow the surveillance of citizens and it's illegal under NSA's own policy that they ignored illegally, and there's a technically independent section/organization for leaking these issues to OCA. Though I'm not sure if it was around in Snowden's time, it could literally have been made due to his concerns ironically.
> There were options to take to whistle blow the surveillance of citizens...
You should read Snowden's statements on the official channels he attempted to use, and those he disregarded. You should also go read up on what Daniel Ellsberg thought of Snowden's chances for getting a fair trial after publicly blowing the whistle on the long-running violation of federal domestic spying law. [0]
[0] In the mid-1970's, FedGov treated whistleblowers who released classified information very, very poorly. These days (and back in the mid 2000's), FedGov fucking crucifies such people behind closed doors.
> “As a legal matter, during his time with NSA, Edward Snowden did not use whistleblower procedures under either law or regulation to raise his objections to U.S. intelligence activities, and thus, is not considered a whistleblower under current law.” (p. 18)
You should give these docs a skim, I'd be curious what your thoughts are. I used to sympathize with Snowden (and Assange) until I read into what actually went down.
From [0], which links to a now-paywalled Vanity Fair article:
> The N.S.A. at this point not only knows I raised complaints, but that there is evidence that I made my concerns known to the N.S.A.’s lawyers, because I did some of it through e-mail. I directly challenge the N.S.A. to deny that I contacted N.S.A. oversight and compliance bodies directly via e-mail and that I specifically expressed concerns about their suspect interpretation of the law, and I welcome members of Congress to request a written answer to this question [from the N.S.A.].
IIRC, Federal government contractors received approximately zero real protections under whistleblower law back in 2014.
When Daniel Ellsberg is publicly saying that Snowden did things the right way, and that had Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers in 2014, he would have done it in much the same way Snowden did, you should strongly consider the possibility that the official channels that went disused were ignored for very good reasons.
> I used to sympathize with ...Assange...
If you're talking about Wikileaks, then the objective of Wikileaks was to spread secrets that were verified to be reasonably genuine (and generally harmless to human life if revealed) as far and wide as possible. Wikileaks' mission meant that it just wouldn't be using Federal whistleblower channels for its reporting.
Why do you take Snowden at his word yet ignore a bipartisan intel committee investigation? Have you even skimmed the docs? I'm disappointed in myself for engaging in these fruitless discussions time and again.
You're expecting Americans to trust members of congress, and not only members of congress, but specifically the ones who specialize in keeping secrets, many of which were secrets that are now known to have violated the constitution, federal law, and international law? For real?
What's the steel-man version of your position here, "members of Congress are generally competent, trustworthy, honest people who rarely lie"?
Are we talking about two different Snowdens and two different governments or something?
Are you a federal government employee or contractor who's economic livelihood depends on towing the party line and white knighting for the NSA, an agency that flagrantly violated federal law to illegally surveil domestic communications between American citizens, an act that was specifically and explicitly forbidden of them from their very inception, and remains that way (legally) today?
Are you trying to sway public opinion such that the perpetrators of this treason will continue to not face criminal prosecution for their crimes against the citizens of this country within their lifetimes?
Any committee that will leave entirely unpunished being lied to, directly, in person, by the fellow in charge of the biggest agency the committee is supposed to be overseeing isn't worth a damn.
Any committee that won't raise a big public stink about that agency's lawyers lying to the US Supreme Court? Same thing.
It's entirely possible to be both bipartisan and a Congressional committee but still be largely worthless to the public.
> Why do you take Snowden at his word yet ignore a bipartisan intel committee...
Snowden risked his ass (and is currently living in exile) to alert the public about long-running, major violations of Federal law. The most we get out of the absolute best member of that committee is "Man. The American public would be fucking incensed if they heard some of the things that we've been told in our chambers. Someone should really do something about this.".
And yeah, I'm aware that that report was written by a scratch committee assembled in the House and is organizationally unrelated to the permanent Senate intelligence oversight committee on which Wyden and company sit. In a crisis situation, these folks absolutely carry the same water, regardless of where they are on the org chart. One only need look at the retroactive immunity granted to the telcos for their long-standing, obvious violation of Federal law caused by their participation in NSA's then-very-illegal wiretap program to understand that.
Now that I have some coffee in me, I'm reminded that you should go read what was publicly said about Daniel Ellsberg both through official government channels, and just more generally in plausibly-deniable public statements. (Hell, go look at what they did (and threatened to do) to MLK.) [0]
Character assassination is a tool that FedGov does not hesitate to use against people who cause it big trouble. And yes, putting "spin" on facts absolutely is character assassination. Snowden was a poor student. MLK cheated on his wife. So what? These facts have nothing to do with the ills and rot that these folks were exposing and leading us away from.
[0] You should also read up on how the Ellsberg case made it impossible for anyone facing an Espionage Act charge for leaking classified information to argue that their disclosure was justified. This is one big reason why Snowden's departure from the country was a very, very smart move.
And Ellsberg very, very loudly and publicly proclaims that Snowden did exactly the right thing by leaving the country... that (unlike Ellsberg) Snowden would have been muzzled, thrown into a deep hole until his trial date, and not have received a fair trial.
1) It's not the 1970s anymore. Things have changed.
2) Ellsberg walked out on bail and was able to speak publicly about why he did what he did. Snowden would be denied bail and visitors because of "national security" concerns.
2) In a novel application of law, Ellsberg was not permitted to raise a "my disclosure was justified because of very significant interest" defense. [0]
3) Ellsberg only walked free because Nixon's agents were caught breaking into Ellsberg's psychologist's office to search for more character-assassination material, and the judge found this conduct to be unconscionable. Had Nixon NOT done this, #2 above would have ensured Ellsberg had no choice but to go to jail.
4) Given the existence of the NSA wiretap program that Snowden revealed, FedGov would not have the opportunity to make the same blunder Nixon did... because they have an extensive secret database (that "happens" to contain information about US citizens) that they can make secret searches against to find all sorts of blackmail material.
[0] This right here is the REALLY BIG thing. It's my understanding that Ellsberg was expecting to be able to at least argue that his actions were justified by very significant public interest. While having that right stripped away is pretty normal in this day and age, it absolutely was not back then.
I'll repeat a paragraph from I wrote four hours before you posted this question:
> Character assassination is a tool that FedGov does not hesitate to use against people who cause it big trouble. And yes, putting "spin" on facts absolutely is character assassination. Snowden was a poor student. MLK cheated on his wife. So what? These facts have nothing to do with the ills and rot that these folks were exposing and leading us away from.
Maybe I read this story wrong, but I wouldn't put Snowden in the same crowd as this person. Much more of a criminal in this case versus a whistleblower.
Jeffrey D. Sachs spent quite a lot of time in Moscow and many communist countries. He has a great affinity for them. He was on their payroll. To believe anything he writes would be no different than believing Putin himself.
There is not one piece of evidence that "There were in fact two main U.S. provocations. The first was the U.S. intention to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia in order to surround Russia"
This is a complete lie and Ukraine and Georgia were not even seeking NATO membership. He has absolutely no credibility and provides zero evidence for all his claims.
We used to travel to Europe and travel from country to country for an entire year. Now, we go to Europe and can spend no more than three months on the whole continent. I guess Iceland will be added to this. Why does Europe discourage long-term travelers from spending money there?
What’s sickening is that the 15 million who voted against this and the 15 million who were denied a vote had their rights stripped because a few people who are now dead voted for “change”
In the 8 years since Brexit millions who voted for Brexit have died. Nobody under the age of 26 voted for Brexit, and more above the age of 26 voted remain than voted leave.
also, legislation in EU is harmonized, i.e. all important legal bits between the different countries are the same (implementation might differ slightly)
Mostly to discourage illegal immigration. Because there are no internal border controls, nobody knows if you are traveling from country to country or living permanently in one country.
The goal of the H1B program is to import cheap labor from India to replace US Technology workers. They become slaves here because of their status and corporations use them to replace American workers, especially college grads who are finding it very difficult to get a start.
Go to any corporate campus and it is evident. Get rid of the H1B program and get rid of International student programs. America needs to focus on its people when it comes to education and employment.
I'm sure the extra 85,000 positions are more than sufficient to get all those low-skilled college grads hired. Not to mention the top unis are pretty happy to shut down International programs.
While I sympathize with your comments, We just came out of five years of WOKE, WOKE, WOKE. We cant let the next 5 years slip away, due to whining democrats.
It sounds romantic until they cancel your train or it is hours late, missed transfers, dirty cabins, etc. It's all a crap shoot on whether you get a nice train and everything goes smoothly. I've traveled by train in Germany, Poland, Czechia, Austria, Hungary, Ukraine, etc.
Driving your vehicle is the best way to go if you want to enjoy the sights on the way.
The H1B program will be used to destroy the entire tech industry with desperate and cheap labor from India.
University Graduates are not even given a chance, and I would discourage anyone from pursuing anything related to Programming and Development unless they have a Java Certificate or a degree from the University of Hyderabad.
Entire corporations are using Indian labor to replace American workers. Just visit any corporate campus across the US and it is evident.
