Jon Stewart is to blame for Trump.

[Cutlass]

The decline of the rust belt wasn't a policy issue. US auto manufacturers failed utterly when the time came to shift from an innovation market to a consumables market. No policy by any government anywhere could have saved them.

The Rustbelt was an incompetence issue as a side effect of other policies. Reagan began several anti-jobs policies when he took office. The Rustbelt as we know it is the outcome of them.

Policy 1: Destroy labor. By making it clear that the power of organized labor was dead, and that labor would not be respected, Reagan made it impossible for labor to fight to keep jobs in union states. Companies faced no consequences from moving jobs to union busting locations and even overseas. In fact, American companies get a tax break for doing so. The taxpayer pays companies to send American jobs overseas.

Policy 2: The design of the Reagan tax cuts discouraged domestic investment. Individual investors simply had no incentive to invest in companies that invested in the US.

Policy 3: Acceptance of higher average unemployment rates. This both harmed investment, and made sure labor got lower wages.

Policy 5: Deregulation of finance. It became more profitable to speculate than to invest. It became more profitable to do mergers than to grow companies.

Policy 6: Cuts to domestic public investment. Less infrastructure spending means less jobs in many industries. Particularly American heavy industries.

Policy 7: Cut back the welfare state, so that labor is even more desperate, and won't fight back.

Policy 8: Massive deficits: Foreign exchange rates respond to monetary and fiscal policy. In the 70s American manufacturers first faced serious competition. Now they didn't do well for a number of reasons. But neither were they going to ruin. Reagan's deficits made the difference to make them go to ruin.

It caused massive changes in the foreign exchange rate of the US dollar. And that made American manufactures much less competitive with foreign manufactured goods.


Yes, there were trends which have been against American companies for a long time. But Reagan really accelerated all of that.

I'm surprised to see you of all people complaining about manufacturing jobs being sent overseas. What should he have done to protect them?

I'm not opposed to foreign trade. Nor am I for protectionism. But in order for trade to benefit everyone in a country policies still have to have the importing country working to keep it's economy as competitive, dynamic, and high investment as possible.

Developed economies are going to lose low value added manufacturing jobs. Nothing can be done about that. And high value added manufacture is going to require fewer workers for the output. Productivity goes up, and nothing can change that. This is natural. That said, there is nothing which prevents, or in any way restricts, high wage nations from having high value added manufacturing jobs. Germany and Japan are not low wage nations. Yet they do well with manufacturing. Why? Because productivity is high. But that high productivity requires high investment. And "Supply side economics" is anti-investment.

Conservatives are so utterly determined to redistribute wealth that they completely destroy the creation of wealth.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't disagree, but the simple dynamics of supply and demand are also in play, and Occam's razor and all that. I can't find the statistics, but sometime in the late seventies the number of registered vehicles in the US caught up to and surpassed the number of licensed drivers. US auto makers did not adapt their marketing strategies to the new environment for two decades, and got spanked for it. We are coming back...now. Little late.

 

[Hygro]

Deficits should soften the dollar which would make American exports more competitive. Most of that volatility was Volcker's interest rate expirement.

 

[Nexlev]

I don't get the whole turf war over who's to blame for Trump. Are you trump? Did you vote for him? Did you help or endorse him? If not, then your not responsible. A rationalization could be made for many people contributing to his rise, but they are all a stretch.

Several other points in this article I could agree with, but they don't lead to Trump. Stewart was at least funny. Oliver and Noah on the other hand...

 

[Hygro]

Krugman has an article where he responds to being blamed for creating Trump. Apparently members of the party of personal responsibility are saying various liberals caused Trump by being too mean to the relatively less extreme candidates of the past umpteen years.

 

[Leoreth]

Well personal responsibility has always been the personal responsibility of others.

 

[Cutlass]

Deficits should soften the dollar which would make American exports more competitive. Most of that volatility was Volcker's interest rate expirement.

Deficits raise demand. That causes increases in price. Note the peak with Bush's deficits as well.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't disagree, but the simple dynamics of supply and demand are also in play, and Occam's razor and all that. I can't find the statistics, but sometime in the late seventies the number of registered vehicles in the US caught up to and surpassed the number of licensed drivers. US auto makers did not adapt their marketing strategies to the new environment for two decades, and got spanked for it. We are coming back...now. Little late.

When Reagan took office, GM had half the global production of autos. Now they aren't even the biggest company. That's the incompetence of GM management, not that the market peaked.

Here's total sales: http://www.macrotrends.net/1372/auto-and-light-truck-sales-historical-chart

As you can see, there's a lot of short term fluctuation. But overall sales numbers are not down. Just the share which is the American makers is down. What US automakers did not do is invest to build the cars the American consumers wanted. That does not come down to any one reason. But the lack of a pro-investment environment in the US certainly didn't help it.

 

[Lexicus]

Nobody said anything about beneficence. He paid what he had to pay because his manufacturing process required reliability in the labor force. But the fact remains that he paid way more to get that reliability than the going rate of the day, and auto workers were always way ahead of the average manufacturing job wage as a result.

Well, if you want to change the claim from "manufacturing jobs were good jobs" to "auto workers got paid more than other manufacturing jobs," then sure.

 

[metalhead]

Possibly because service jobs usually require a higher education so people with service jobs can more easily find another job. People in manufacturing jobs tend to really struggle with finding work if they lose their job. So it is a voter group that politicians try to reach out to.

But that's exactly the point, expanding the service economy to reach those people and give them good paying jobs makes a heck of a lot more sense than pimping the impossible dream of reopening the plants that shut down - plants which even if they came back would employ 1/5th or 1/10th of the number of people they used to.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

But that's exactly the point, expanding the service economy to reach those people and give them good paying jobs makes a heck of a lot more sense than pimping the impossible dream of reopening the plants that shut down - plants which even if they came back would employ 1/5th or 1/10th of the number of people they used to.

Oh I agree with you that we should be promoting service jobs instead of pretending that manufacturing is going to come back. Unfortunately, this is not a message that politicians want to send to blue collar workers. No politician wants to be the one to look an unemployed factory worker in the eyes and say "sorry but you are probably never going to get your factory job back". Plus, a lot of these workers are very attached to their manufacturing jobs because it is all they've ever done and they don't know how to do anything else. So, they are not interested in a service job. If you tell them that you will retrain them for a service job, they will probably look at you and say "I don't want that. I've been a factory worker my whole life. My daddy and granddaddy were factory workers before me. It's who I am".

 

[metalhead]

Interestingly, though, a lot of people attribute Bill Clinton's 1992 comeback in the primaries to the fact that he spent a considerable amount of time traipsing through New Hampshire with exactly that message.

I think people in those places intuitively know that their factory jobs aren't coming back. They aren't gravitating to Trump because they believe he is going to bring them back; they're doing it because he promises action. He talks directly to them and says he will do something about it, the hope being that even though he will probably fail, his action will eventually lead to more positive results.

People will go through hell to provide economic security for their families. While you are right that there is a degree of cultural resistance to giving up on the idea of manufacturing as an engine of our economy, I think the practical concerns would win out in the end. The real problem is that these people have been ignored for so long by the policy makers in government, that Hillary coming along with all the plans in the world just sounds like the same old BS broken promises they've been hearing from government types starting with Reagan. Trump the outsider, however, might actually be able to enact policy that helps them. I think that is a recipe for big league disappointment if Trump were to somehow become president, but I understand why he's appealing to them.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I don't get the whole turf war over who's to blame for Trump.

Krugman has an article where he responds to being blamed for creating Trump.

You've heard the expression "there's more than enough blame to go around"? Well, in this case, the phenomenon calling for blame is of such outsized proportions, that it feels like it just must somehow spill over to other parties than Trump himself, his supporters or the Republicans.

And I actually think there's a grain of truth in the OP article. Liberals rightly believe that everyone should be tolerant and inclusive and unbigoted. They have the moral high ground on this matter. But their way of promoting that vision of inclusiveness and tolerance is now often to employ the very techniques that more conservative elements in society used for centuries (millenia?) used to enforce their own ideology: aggressive public shaming. And to the recipients of this public shaming, figures like Stewart do come across as smug, schoolmarmy, self-satisfied, dismissive, haughty. (Mahr is worse and the worst of all, in my estimation, is Samantha Bee. she's no-holds-barred if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you're-an-idiot.)

I offered an analysis months back of why "The Silent Majority" signs were prominent at Trump rallies and argued that what such signs were really communicating is that the population to which he appeals feels silenced--aggressively told by society at large that they can't talk in certain ways. Trump appeals to them by being un-PC, by breaking those speech taboos on their behalf. And the strength of his appeal is a measure of the level of resentment some people feel at having been told: "you can't talk that way."

I actually think the DNC did a fantastic job of advancing this call for inclusiveness, tolerance, mutual respect without coming across as smug. The appeal there was it's just plain more fun to have respect for all kinds of people--expands your circle of potential friends. "Come join the party." And people have, in droves.

I love Stewart, but I'm already in the in-crowd. You can have my smug when you pry it out of my cold, dead sneer. The DNC picked the better way to promote these values in a presidential campaign, imho.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

When Reagan took office, GM had half the global production of autos. Now they aren't even the biggest company. That's the incompetence of GM management, not that the market peaked.

Here's total sales: http://www.macrotrends.net/1372/auto-and-light-truck-sales-historical-chart

As you can see, there's a lot of short term fluctuation. But overall sales numbers are not down. Just the share which is the American makers is down. What US automakers did not do is invest to build the cars the American consumers wanted. That does not come down to any one reason. But the lack of a pro-investment environment in the US certainly didn't help it.

Since I respect you, and know you are knowledgeable, it really bothers me that I cannot figure out how I am consistently talking right past you.

I didn't say anything about the market "peaking." It transitioned from an innovation market, ie "we have this new thing and everyone is going to need/want one" to a replacement market; ie "we know you already have one, but this one is a better one." US automakers completely failed in that they either didn't even notice, or they thought they didn't have to do anything different.

They were saying "Detroit iron, come and get it" when Japanese competitors were saying "this runs on less fuel, change pays for itself." Consumers either said "I will keep the Detroit iron I have" or they switched. Either way they didn't buy just another hunk of Detroit iron unless theirs completely wore out. When it eventually did wear out they were offered "Detroit iron, come and get it," or "new tech, lasts longer!" The way US manufacturers marketed their product did not fit the market as it existed.

US manufacturers continued on a twelve year design cycle. Japanese manufacturers walked into the market using an eight year design cycle. If you bought a new style US made car, when you wanted something new you couldn't exercise brand loyalty because the "new" model of your car was not much different from what you had. The twelve year design cycle was PERFECT...for an innovation market that unfortunately for them no longer existed.

So these clowns who were getting out marketed in just about every way said what stupid Americans always say; "all that matters is price!" They moved jobs overseas because they had to not only keep making money, they had to do it while lowering prices not only below the competition's price, but so much below it that it made up for all the ways their clock was getting cleaned on the marketing front. Jobs were lost, profits went down anyway, quality suffered with attendant compounding of the problem. The rest is the history of the rust belt.

 

[Cutlass]

Since I respect you, and know you are knowledgeable, it really bothers me that I cannot figure out how I am consistently talking right past you.

I didn't say anything about the market "peaking." It transitioned from an innovation market, ie "we have this new thing and everyone is going to need/want one" to a replacement market; ie "we know you already have one, but this one is a better one." US automakers completely failed in that they either didn't even notice, or they thought they didn't have to do anything different.

They were saying "Detroit iron, come and get it" when Japanese competitors were saying "this runs on less fuel, change pays for itself." Consumers either said "I will keep the Detroit iron I have" or they switched. Either way they didn't buy just another hunk of Detroit iron unless theirs completely wore out. When it eventually did wear out they were offered "Detroit iron, come and get it," or "new tech, lasts longer!" The way US manufacturers marketed their product did not fit the market as it existed.

US manufacturers continued on a twelve year design cycle. Japanese manufacturers walked into the market using an eight year design cycle. If you bought a new style US made car, when you wanted something new you couldn't exercise brand loyalty because the "new" model of your car was not much different from what you had. The twelve year design cycle was PERFECT...for an innovation market that unfortunately for them no longer existed.

So these clowns who were getting out marketed in just about every way said what stupid Americans always say; "all that matters is price!" They moved jobs overseas because they had to not only keep making money, they had to do it while lowering prices not only below the competition's price, but so much below it that it made up for all the ways their clock was getting cleaned on the marketing front. Jobs were lost, profits went down anyway, quality suffered with attendant compounding of the problem. The rest is the history of the rust belt.

Here's the thing, as I see it. We aren't actually on the same subject.

• 
  
  Subject X: Why has manufacturing employment been trending downwards since the 1950s, even though manufacturing volume and value have not?
  
  Subject R: What have Reagan and Republican policies done to accelerate deindustrialization and destroy manufacturing jobs in the US?
  
  Subject C: Why did (do) the American automakers suck so much more than the Japanese automakers (but typically less than the European automakers)?
  
  Subject L: What is the result of the American automakers sucking?
  

I could add a few others, but it was a long day at work.

Now here's the thing. I don't deny that the American automakers suffered from self inflicted wounds. Hell, they're still doing it. But the auto industry is a small part of the total problem. It just happens to be an iconic part, and so very visible. Hell, a lot of the Big 3's problem is that their management needs to be taken out and turned over to a bunch of Marxist-Stalinists and put against a wall and shot. But that management is not the totality of the problem, and nor will shooting them solve the problem. Because there is a structural problem, several actually, which underlies the auto industry problem. And without addressing those problems, nothing else you do will really matter. The auto industry is only a piece of the Rustbelt. Other elements of the Rustbelt were killed by the same problems that hurt the autos. Some of it internal to the companies, some of it bad government policies with Reagan and the Republicans...

And at least one key bad policy which dates back to the 19th century. And that is the basic weakness of American anti-trust policy. We have it, but it's just far too weak to get the job done.

The Japanese automakers kicked the asses of the American automakers because there were 8 Japanese firms going after 3 American firms. Those 3 American firms had spent the previous 60 or 70 years learning to not compete. So when they had to compete, no one working at those firms had ever experienced competition before, and entirely failed to understand that it was even a thing. Much less what to do about it. Nothing in their lives had ever prepared them for it. They were like the World War I generals who didn't understand that if throwing 100,000 men at a fortified trench wouldn't take that trench, then throwing 200,000 men at it wasn't going to take it either.

So the lack of a sane American competition policy is a foundation for why American firms have done so poorly in a world which suddenly has global competition. And, BTW, Republicans continue to fight to prevent American firms from having to compete. But even that is only a piece of the puzzle.

I hope this clears up why we're not talking the same language.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Fair enough. My only disagreement is that you are looking at the auto industry through a lens that it was perceived important, and I look at it as it was just as important as it was perceived. That too is a component in your valid observations on anti-trust. The auto industry was as important as it was because nothing was done to keep it from becoming that singularly important.

 

[Mouthwash]

Of course no one learned anything and no idea was engaged with. Garbage in, garbage out. The Stewarts and Colberts are the garbage men of public discourse.

An unreasonably high proportion of millennials got their news SOLELY from the Daily Show and Colbert Report in their glory days. Garbage is garbage, and they served it fresh every episode.

Look at what Stewart did in his recent appearance on the Late Show. He has enormous influence, people missed him. And he spent it mocking Sean Hannity for supporting Donald Trump. It just doesn't seem like he's improving any discourse; just making fools of people who 99% of his audience don't watch in the first place.

The whole point about Stewart, as someone was pointing out upthread, is that most of what he did was call out hypocrisy.

How he did it wasn't very constructive. It's easy to spot hypocrisy and lies in a behemoth PR machine like Fox News. And if I focus day after day on 'BS Mountain,' my audience begins to apply what they see to right-wingers in general. It's like doing a documentary on African-Americans and showing mainly gang shootings and abortions.

So yeah, I can understand why liberals have been taught that condescension and hyperbole are proper strategies for dealing with people who don't agree with them.

Paul Ryan comes up with a plan to literally make poor, mostly colored, American children hungry for the purpose of giving that money to rich white people. Nearly every conservative in America signs on to the plan. And then they all went to church to congratulate themselves on what good Christians they are.

Modern American conservatism fundamentally rejects the concept that people are responsible for their own actions.

Case in point.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Interestingly, though, a lot of people attribute Bill Clinton's 1992 comeback in the primaries to the fact that he spent a considerable amount of time traipsing through New Hampshire with exactly that message.

I think people in those places intuitively know that their factory jobs aren't coming back. They aren't gravitating to Trump because they believe he is going to bring them back; they're doing it because he promises action. He talks directly to them and says he will do something about it, the hope being that even though he will probably fail, his action will eventually lead to more positive results.

People will go through hell to provide economic security for their families. While you are right that there is a degree of cultural resistance to giving up on the idea of manufacturing as an engine of our economy, I think the practical concerns would win out in the end. The real problem is that these people have been ignored for so long by the policy makers in government, that Hillary coming along with all the plans in the world just sounds like the same old BS broken promises they've been hearing from government types starting with Reagan. Trump the outsider, however, might actually be able to enact policy that helps them. I think that is a recipe for big league disappointment if Trump were to somehow become president, but I understand why he's appealing to them.

Everything that Trump has said either wont happen or be pretty devastating if he dose implement them. From tariffs that violate trade agreements to mass deportation. Cracking down on companies that use illegal labour probably the only workable idea but that would mean taking on GOP big business interest.

The main problem is US cant really complete with cheap overseas steel. its only alive due to the Billions in US subsidies
And keeping the steel industry alive for defense / self sufficiency reasons

 

[Cheetah]

Lots of smart stuff.

Lots of smart stuff too.

I just need to interject and say that I really enjoyed this exchange.

How about we nominate you two as President and VP? That would solve things!

 

[Cutlass]

I just need to interject and say that I really enjoyed this exchange.

How about we nominate you two as President and VP? That would solve things!

I'm not slick enough to be a politician.