←back to thread

355 points pavel_lishin | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.213s | source
Show context
isthispermanent ◴[] No.45388969[source]
So the authors basic argument is to offshore bus production. As if that doesn’t carry any negative side effects.

This is exactly what the majority of Americans voted against and exactly why the left can’t find its footing. Everyone is now fully aware that offshoring for a cheap sticker price comes with higher, harder to price costs elsewhere.

replies(10): >>45389053 #>>45389111 #>>45389120 #>>45389141 #>>45389163 #>>45389239 #>>45389382 #>>45389624 #>>45392483 #>>45394896 #
twoodfin ◴[] No.45389111[source]
The side effects of “Buy American” rules do not include a dynamic, competitive domestic bus manufacturing industry. Just the opposite.

If the Chinese want to subsidize our mass transit buildout, why not let them? Are busses really critical national security concerns?

If we needed the existing NA producers to build military busses it sounds like we’d be screwed!

replies(4): >>45389165 #>>45389178 #>>45389194 #>>45389344 #
1. 9rx ◴[] No.45389194[source]
> If the Chinese want to subsidize our mass transit buildout, why not let them?

The contention is always around the debt that is created when you let them. If China never calls the debt, that's a huge win — you just got something for free! You'd be crazy not to take that deal. But others are concerned about what happens if they do call the debt. You might not like what you have to give up in return (e.g. houses, farmland, etc.). Just ask Canada.

Of course, there is always the option to stonewall their attempts to collect on the debt, but that creates all kinds of other negative effects when the USA can no longer be trusted to make good on its promises.

Tradeoffs, as always.