[isthispermanent]

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.

[twoodfin]

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!

[toast0]

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

I only really skimmed the article, and didn't even load the underlying paper. But it seems like a big issue was custom orders. If we need wartime vehicle production, like in WWII, there would most likely be a single or small number of designs that a facility would produce. I would expect a lot more coordination between ordering, production, and supply chain as well --- if we need mass production, tradeoffs change.

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

Busses are likely not really the national security concern, the concern would be having large vehicle manufacturing. It may be easier to retool a bus factory line to build large military vehicles than a compact car factory.

I'd imagine this is something like the Jones Act, where if it works, we keep the doors open for rapid changeover to military production. That's not really working for ships... the market has chosen alternate transportation rather than building large vessels for domestic transport, and so we don't really have large shipyards that could be pressed into building military vessels if needed --- the shipyards that can are the ones that build them in peace time and they don't have much excess capacity.

[kccqzy]

It's primarily a jobs program. We do not really care about a competitive domestic bus manufacturing industry, but we care more than this uncompetitive industry is hiring workers.

[jibe]

A literal bus factory may not be critical for national security, but the ability to manufacture a vehicle is. So the know-how, the supply lines, and the manufacturing facility are important. The ability to manufacture a fuel injector, a transmission, a windshield is going going to apply to a bus, a plane, a tank..

[rsynnott]

So subsidise the bus manufacturers to make competitive products directly, rather than an indirect subsidy via forcing transport authorities to buy uncompetitive junk.

Forcing transport authorities etc to buy local seems like clearly the worst way to subsidise industry; there is little incentive for the manufacturers to make a good or cost-competitive product.

[bradleybuda]

If only there was an entire American city filled with people and companies who had this expertise. We could call it the "Motor City".

[dgfitz]

You ignored "supply lines"

I encourage you to find a vehicle made in said city with zero parts sourced from China.

That is the point.

[supportengineer]

Or “Fremont”

[mike50]

Sure that's why the Hummer was a great vehicle with all the institutional knowledge from GM. /s Also modern engines in tanks and planes are turbine engines with nothing in common to lighter vehicles (APCs trucks etc). Tanks don't have windshields either.

[9rx]

> 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.

[gruez]

>So the authors basic argument is to offshore bus production. As if that doesn’t carry any negative side effects.

How's American shipbuilding faring, after companies were forced to "buy american" for domestic shipping?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920

[TrainedMonkey]

> So the authors basic argument is to offshore bus production.

No, their recommendation are transit subsidies with strings attached aimed at driving domestic economies of scale. Of course, depending on how a model is defined, 100 offshore unit cap can absolutely be gamed by making a "custom" model for each city or year.

> Finally, they recommend that foreign bus manufacturers be allowed to sell up to 100 vehicles of a given model, at which point they would need to establish a US manufacturing facility to expand sales further.

> To reduce costs, the researchers suggest that the federal reimbursements for bus purchases be capped at the 25th percentile cost of similar vehicles

[scythe]

There's more than one way to accomplish the goals of protectionists, and the different options are usually not created equal. Some economic policies have worse side effects than others to accomplish similar tasks.

In this case, I think that placing a tax on imports (tariff) is always preferable to an inflexible ban on imports. This is not an unusual approach in economics; it is in fact very common that economists recommend replacing bans with taxes. In fact, even the current administration, which is radical by modern standards, basically always prefers tariffs to bans.

[AngryData]

The left? The US doesn't have a leftist party. Any time a leftist starts looking like they are gaining both parties do everything possible to shut them down.

[reverius42]

In American parlance, Joe Biden is "the left" and Nancy Pelosi is "the far left". I'm guessing both are probably considered center-right from an international perspective?

[p_l]

right wing to center-right for most reformist-minded Democrats. Maybe Bernie alone as center-left.

[rootusrootus]

> This is exactly what the majority of Americans voted against

Hardly. Less than two thirds of Americans actually bothered to vote. And a slight minority of those voted for the current government.

In any case, why does this need to be about identity politics? And if so, why are you suggesting that only the left is committed to an open, free market? Isn't that more traditionally a right-wing position?

[jvanderbot]

All fun and games to point out seeming contradictions! Especially here.

Unfortunately GP is right - optics matters more than factual correctness, and the optics here is mixed - yes gov is overspending, but the solution is to offshore more jobs.

[toomuchtodo]

"Government is spending the amount required for developed world jobs to build buses." would be a better title than "US cities pay too much for buses." The macro of deflationary globalization due to enormous surplus labor in the developing world are mostly over.

Someone's comment said "why not let China subsidize US bus deployment?" I think that's a fine argument, as long as we're still spending to keep the US manufacturing muscle strong. The cost is the cost to have domestic skilled manufacturing labor at the ready, and someone is going to have to pay it, because you're not going to be able to buy warships from China for war with China. No different than the US auto and aerospace industries retooling from civilian to military production rapidly during previous world wars.

Corporate America cares about quarterly profits, not capability readiness. This is an incentive alignment and capital efficiency issue requiring policy improvement.

[toomuchtodo]

Citations:

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/manufacturing-is-a-war-now

https://time.com/7313207/ford-ceo-farley-essential-economy-w...

[isthispermanent]

China is neither an open or free market. Opening the door to China and their industrial policy is exactly what distorts traditionally free and open markets.

[rfrey]

Blaming this on the amorphous "left" is extraordinary, when offshoring has been a 40 year project of corporate America and "shareholder returns at any cost". A neoliberal global order has been the traditional Republican platform.

[everdrive]

It's also just not advisable. It's better to attack policies rather than groups.

[gosub100]

The left serves corporations at least as much as it claims to represent the people. That is why they are blamed.

[rfrey]

This is confusing. If I accept your statement, then it seems:

1) The democrats hypocritically supports offshoring while claiming to support workers

2) The republicans explicitly (prior to Trump, but MAGA is not very similar to traditional Republicans) support corporations and offshoring as a mechanism for increased profits

And so we blame "the left"?

[gosub100]

No they aren't exclusively to blame. But they were a big part of elimination of manufacturing jobs in the 90s, and were huge critics of attempts to bring them back. I don't want people thinking that the left are some kind of "underdog" that is championing the people. Also their fiscal policy doesn't depend on manufacturing jobs. They can just print more cash and hand it out in various "programs". They, as a party, profit off suffering of Americans because they are always there to sell their voters a solution. The worst thing that could happen for them is people doing well. Because they won't be needed anymore.

[GuinansEyebrows]

Sorry to be glib but I’m not sure you’re familiar enough with the political left to make a statement like this so confidently.

[gosub100]

That's not refuting my claim. It's turning the claim into an ad-hominem by attacking my character. You can research who donates to Democratic candidates if you want to see evidence of my claim.

[GuinansEyebrows]

by and large, US Democrats are center-right by policy. relatively leftward from your rank and file GOP goosesteppers, sure. maybe we feel the same way, but i wouldn't make the mistake of categorizing someone like Chuck Schumer as a left politician.

[watwut]

> This is exactly what the majority of Americans voted against and exactly why the left can’t find its footing.

They voted against trans rights and they voted to cause harm to people they dislike. It had absolutely nothing with buss prices or generic this. The vote for conservatives and Trump is ideological, about wish to wage culture war. It is about cruelty being the goal.

And I mean this 100% seriously. It is absurd to pretend it was about something like this.