[ceejayoz]

> Well then we agree, that their industrial policy is working a little better than ours.

Yes! Their car industry is competing; ours is hoping to avoid it.

You now understand my point and objection to preserving domestic capacity via selling worse cars more expensively to its own citizens.

[CPLX]

No I don't understand your objection. My argument is that preserving domestic capacity is necessary for our survival, and that limiting imports is necessary but insufficient to achieve that goal.

Banning stock buybacks would be another helpful step. Can you imagine being at the helm of a major US automaker as the transition to electric is happening and thinking you have no better investment to make in your own company than literally taking the revenue you're earning and sending it to hedge funds and Wall Street?

[ceejayoz]

> My argument is that preserving domestic capacity is necessary for our survival…

And my point is that's only the case if said capacity is effective.

Protectionism does not lead to effective industrial capacity. It leads to the Ford Pinto.

> Banning stock buybacks would be another helpful step.

I'm all for this!

[CPLX]

We agree on quite a bit.

You're wrong about protectionism though. It is an essential part of industrial policy and heavily employed by every industrial powerhouse country including Japan, China, Germany, and yes the US. China uses it extensively and it's a core pillar of why they are now the center of world industry.

The long running argument to the contrary is better understood as propaganda by the financial sector.