fbpx

Resolved: That America Should Adopt an Industrial Policy

Editor’s Note: The author delivered these remarks, as prepared, as his opening statement in a debate with Richard Reinsch at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington, D.C. on July 14, 2019.

I’d like to begin with a quote attributed to Michael Boskin when he was Chair of George H. W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers: “Computer chips, potato chips, what’s the difference?” My argument, in its simplest form, is that there’s a very large difference, and policymakers should take it into account.

My argument rests on three claims, moving from economics to policy and then politics:

First, that market economies do not automatically allocate resources well across sectors.

Second, that policymakers have tools that can support vital sectors that might otherwise suffer from underinvestment—I will call those tools “industrial policy.”

Third, that while the policies produced by our political system will be far from ideal, efforts at sensible industrial policy can improve upon our status quo, which is itself far from ideal.

Why Manufacturing Matters

Economics first: Why do we care about the economy’s composition? For one thing, it has serious distributional consequences. If we only care about consumption, we might believe we can remedy those with redistribution—let the wealth get created by people working in tech or finance in just a few cities, then collect taxes from them and mail checks to everyone else. But if we value, as we should, the ability of individuals, their families, and their communities to participate as productive contributors to society, then our economy needs to generate good opportunities for workers of different aptitudes in different places. 

We also care because some industries matter more for the economy’s health and long-run trajectory. Some achieve greater productivity gains. Some rely on, and foster, broader ecosystems of researchers and specialists, suppliers and customers. Some generate larger “multiplier” effects for other employment.  

Manufacturing, from these perspectives, is particularly important. Our popular obsession with manufacturing isn’t some nostalgic anachronism. (Here I use “manufacturing” to encapsulate the sector of our economy that makes physical things—traditional manufacturing, resource extraction, energy production, agriculture, some construction, and so forth.) Manufacturing provides particularly well-paying, stable employment—especially for men with less formal education. Manufacturing also tends to deliver faster productivity growth because its processes are susceptible to technological advances that complement labor and increase output. 

Echoing Boskin on potato chips, President Obama’s CEA Chair, Christina Romer, once wrote: “consumers value haircuts as much as hair dryers.” Fair enough, for consumers. But not for workers. A barber today is barely more productive than one of past generations, while someone making hair dryers might help churn out ten times the product of his predecessors (assuming, of course, we still made hair dryers here). If that barber wants his wage to rise, he’d better hope his customers are productivity-gaining hair-dryer makers, not just personal-services providers themselves.

Note also that, while our economy can be predominantly services-based, not everyone can cut each other’s hair. If the local hair-dryer factory moves overseas and the laid-off workers all try to shift into local services, the community will face a rather existential crisis: what will it send the rest of the world, in return for all the things that it wants the world to send it? 

When communities lose manufacturing—which is not the only form of tradeable production, but certainly the primary one—they begin to “export need.” You see this across America, in the dilapidated shopping centers that still have sparkling occupational therapy offices. They are literally the exporters for those towns, exporting to the nation’s taxpayers the care of local residents on disability. That’s how the community attracts resources. This might look fine in the aggregate consumption data, but we should not consider such outcomes equal, or acceptable.

Finally, manufacturing is unique for the complexity of its supply chains and the interaction between innovation and production. One of the most infuriating face-palms of modern economics is the two-step that goes like this: First, wave away concern as other countries with aggressive industrial policies that attract our critical supply chains overseas, explaining that it doesn’t matter where things get made. Second, wait for people to ask “why can’t we make this or that here,” and explain that of course we can’t because all of the supply chains and expertise are entrenched elsewhere. It’s enough to make one slam one’s head into the podium.

We are also discovering that innovation and production are not so easily disaggregated. Where manufacturing goes, research and design follow. Here I’ll quote Andy Grove, long-time CEO of Intel:

Our pursuit of our individual businesses, which often involves transferring manufacturing and a great deal of engineering out of the country, has hindered our ability to bring innovations to scale at home. Without scaling, we don’t just lose jobs — we lose our hold on new technologies. Losing the ability to scale will ultimately damage our capacity to innovate.

So, computer chips, potato chips, hair dryers, haircuts… the differences are enormous. Still, the case for industrial policy requires recognition not only of certain sectors’ value, but also that the market will overlook the value in theory and that we are underinvesting in practice.

That the free market will not solve this should be fairly self-evident, and is entirely consistent with economic theory. The long-run value, both social and economic, of a robust manufacturing sector is of no concern to a given individual allocating his own resources. It has nothing to do with the most efficient allocation of resources at any point in time. It does not offer a higher return on capital. 

And sure enough, we are suffering from a failure to invest. Output growth in the manufacturing sector itself has slowed dramatically and employment has plummeted, even as compared to other developed economies. Manufacturing output is only 12% of GDP in America, compared to 19% in Japan and 23% in Germany. Economy-wide, private-sector investment has declined, so much so that the private sector is now a net lender in the economy and only the government borrows. Productivity growth has slowed nationwide, even flatlining in recent years. Wages have stagnated. Our trade deficit has skyrocketed, even in advanced technology products like life sciences and electronics.

That is the economic case for industrial policy: manufacturing is important, markets ignore this, and we are paying the price.

A Path Forward

It’s one thing to identify a problem, quite another to suggest we can do anything about it. The good news here is that we can—indeed, not by coincidence have other developed, market economies like Germany and Japan chosen to adopt industrial policies and also reaped the rewards we might expect.

I will describe briefly the types of policies we should consider, from least to most aggressive; Richard can draw the line where he begins to object and we can debate specifics from there:

  • Fund basic research across the sciences
  • Fund applied research, focusing in fields like advanced materials, robotics, and logistics
  • Support private-sector R&D and commercialization with subsidies and specialized institutes
  • Emphasize vocational education and target higher-education support at relevant disciplines
    • Give engineering majors greater assistance than comparative literature majors
  • Increase infrastructure investment and reduce regulatory burdens on it
    • Fast-track approvals of projects that expand industrial capacity
  • Bias the tax code in favor of profits generated from the productive use of labor
  • Retaliate aggressively against mercantilist countries that undermine market competition
    • Reduce Chinese student visas toward zero until Chinese policies change
  • Tax foreign acquisition of U.S. assets, making U.S. goods relatively more attractive
  • Impose local content requirements in key supply chains like communications

Certainly, the policies that emerge from our political process will be imperfect, opportunities for regulatory capture will abound, market distortions will emerge. But here we arrive at the third and final point: for all the limitations of our politics, adoption of an industrial policy will improve upon the status quo. 

One reason to believe this is to observe that other market democracies like Germany and Japan have pursued the approach successfully. Also probative, we should admit, is China. Of course, China’s circumstances are radically different from America’s. But it would be hard to reconcile an assertion that policy support for a manufacturing sector makes it inevitably weaker with the actual experience of the Sino-American trading relationship over the past two decades.

Within the American context, we should work toward the policies that we believe can make a positive difference, even recognizing that the result will be imperfect. Libertarians often posit an ideal world of policy non-intervention as superior to the messy reality of policy action. But that ideal does not exist—messy reality is the only reality and we should not give preference to our existing mess, built on an incorrect understanding of our economic challenges, over one that at least aims closer to the right direction.

That’s especially the case here, because you can have free trade, or you can have free markets, but you can’t have both. The market fundamentalists who insisted on eliminating the barriers between our market and China’s have, by their policy choices, introduced massive distortions into our market. Insisting on allowing the distortions, and then announcing that a dislike of distortions precludes any response, is irrational. Insisting that our workers, alone, fight with their hands tied behind their backs is frankly immoral.

In the real world as we find it, America has no choice but to adopt an industrial policy, and we will be better for it.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on July 23, 2019 at 06:12:05 am

[…] Resolved: That America Should Adopt an Industrial Policy […]

read full comment
Image of Industrial Policy and National Conservatism: A Debate
Industrial Policy and National Conservatism: A Debate
on July 23, 2019 at 07:05:05 am

[…] Note: Richard Reinsch delivered the following prepared remarks in a debate with Oren Cass on the resolution that “America should adopt an industrial policy” at the National […]

read full comment
Image of The True Costs of an Industrial Policy
The True Costs of an Industrial Policy
on July 23, 2019 at 10:35:12 am

We seem to be moving to industrial policy as Trump demands this company or that to hire more Americans and tells us we should not buy from companies that criticize him. I am afraid that is the way industrial policy works in the real world.

read full comment
Image of Dr. Warren L Coats Jr.
Dr. Warren L Coats Jr.
on July 23, 2019 at 11:36:13 am

Cass has done a nice job of presenting both the problems associated with our misguided practice of "offshoring" manufacturing capacity, prowess and know-how and some of the potential remedies for the consequent misalignments.

A brief anecdote in support of Cass arguemnt:

Some years back at a meeting between Boeing and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, the president of Mitsubishi (give him credit for directness, BTW) asked the Boeing representatives: "First, you gave us the stabilizers, next other flight controls, now you give us the wings and parts of the fuselage. At some point, why will we need you at all?" (Paraphrasing here)

To which Boeing replied: "Well, we see ourselves as the Systems Integrator / design manager."

Who had the better assessment of the situation?

What Boeing and ALL those who claim that "it does not matter where something is built" miss is that there is a corollary benefit, spreading across both the subject industry and related industries, arising from the skill, knowledge AND tools that enable complex manufacturing operations.
Consider how many support engineers are needed to manufacture an airplane, or a medical imaging device, etc. It is not simply design engineers but also manufacturing engineers, process engineers, materials engineers, industrial engineers; then, we must also add to this list another class of highly skilled workers / artisans - the developmental machinists, the tool & die makers, the jig and fixture makers, the draftsmen / women, CAD designers, industrial engineers and on and on.

Each of these occupations are - or were - highly paid and, I may add, highly satisfying.
BUT above and beyond the remunerative characteristics of the subject crafts, each AND every one of these skills can AND DID, translate into related manufacturing operations - in particular in R&D, start-up and manufacturing "launch" operations.

Kill the former and you *abort* before birth the latter. You severely inhibit the nations ability to not only manufacture but also to even attempt new products. I would argue that concurrently uou limit the ability to envision new products.

Consider also that there is no lack of funding for R&D from venture capitalists - BUT - there is a pronounced lack of funding to bring the fruits of that R&D online. It simply costs more to "manufacture." Ultimately, we will see (as we are now observing) a decline in R&D. This nation no longer leads the world in the introduction of new product. I would argue that it is a direct result of the "eating out" of the core manufacturing skills and knowledge.

Thus, why not provide tax incentives to those who would accept the financial risk of "launch" manufacturing in addition to the tax incentives for other R&D / startups.

This strikes me as quite sensible AND it may also enable a resurgence in those skills mentioned above that provided a solid middle class lifestyle.

I'll not mention the importance to national defense of a strong manufacturing base. It should be obvious to anyone.

Also, while some may argue that politicization "is the way industrial policy works in the real world", the obvious retort is that this need not be so. Indeed, were the policies Cass (and I) has been advocating, there would be no need to restrict either content or origin as we would be able to stand on our own.

But one thing is missing from Cass' essay - the effect of the change from control of productive assets by OWNERSHIP to control by MANAGEMENT. In this case management is to be read as
Stockholders, i.e, Wall Street, Brokerages - which is to be read as "twenty-something MBA's" - attempting to define the proper allocation of resources / risks based upon some *imagined* proper stock valuation.

We must also change the culture and the "incentives" that Corporate Management responds to. Which CEO will risk his / her compensation, predicated primarily upon stock options, by allocating huge resources to "launch" a new manufacturing operation.
Goodness gracious, No, Dear Boy. such an action may upset the industry analysts.

What industrial policy is to be implemented ought to be neutral on its face, and as far as practical, in effect rewarding those American firms that venture beyond satisfying the ephemeral needs of Wall Street AND develop new technologies, processes and products FOR domestic manufacture. Unlike the Obama Clean Energy Boondoggle, it should NOT provide Federal monies directly to those industries BUT rather provide significant tax incentives after, or even during, the life cycle of development and initial introduction. No favorites!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on July 23, 2019 at 16:12:52 pm

[N]ot everyone can cut each other’s hair.

True, some will cut the hair of all the people, but only the people, who refuse to cut their own hair. Or not.

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
nobody.really
on July 23, 2019 at 16:48:52 pm

Realize that my only relationship to manufacturing was setting up and running a production line for wood ladders on my summer vacation before starting my college prep program and 18 months prior to the company filing for chapter 11. Earlier in my life I had topped sugar beets prior to their acquisition by the folks who were able to change them into the white substance that had a good and bad impact on America's diet. In other words I was on the low end of the food chain.

A country the size of the United States needs an industrial base and cannot sustain the population on intensive agriculture and crofter craftsmanship. But the balance of imported parts versus small manufacturers needs to be addressed, but a centrally planned industrial economy does not necessarily work.

I am writing this as there has been a "budget agreement" eliminating the debt ceiling until July 2021 which looks like an invitation to the Weimar Republic. The protective tariffs of the Smoot-Hawley Act in 1930 exacerbated any weakness there was in the industrial sector and went into a recession in 1931 and came out when Truman lifted wartime controls. A policy should be general and not controlling.

I am a product of agricultural America. My father's family was pretty much self sufficient but was not making extra. My mother's family could not make a go of the small homestead without the supplement of my grandfather's trucking business which went south after the repeal of the Volstead Act.

But saying there should be an industrial policy does not create one. And the hamhanded interference in the economy by an executive who acts on whim and fad is not the answer. Looking back over the last 75 years--I was encouraged to study history--I can see several injections of policy into the economy that have reduced the ability to produce and compete in the world market. These include a social security system that triggered social opprobrium for workers 65 and up staying in the workforce, mandatory schooling to keep younger apprentices out, stretching the time in school to get the "required" skills, a redefinition of employers as rehabilitation specialists and enshrinement of organized laboras dictator of working conditions along with government.

Good luck in the discussion.

read full comment
Image of Earl Haehl
Earl Haehl
on July 23, 2019 at 17:14:21 pm

I left this on the main article but it seems to have disappeared, but I'll repeat the gist of it here:

There is no debate. Industrial policy is anti-capitalist, anti-liberty economic planning. As such it should be derided as backwards idiocy; it should no more be "debated" than should the "advantages of eugenics", the "potential existence of phlogiston", the "medical usefulness of phrenology"!

That this uneconomic vestige of Soviet era collectivism is even being given the time of day in the America of 2019 is a profound absurdity!

I feel ashamed for having wasted this many precious electrons on mocking such elitist garbage...

read full comment
Image of OH Anarcho-Capitalist
OH Anarcho-Capitalist
on July 23, 2019 at 17:15:43 pm

Anyone who thinks industrial planning will yield more production than free market capitalism is a sadly, sadly deluded...

read full comment
Image of OH Anarcho-Capitalist
OH Anarcho-Capitalist
on July 23, 2019 at 18:50:58 pm

I could not disagree more about the need to have a government policy that meddles with industrial processing. If the government wants to help it should get rid of 95% of the federal government employees that keep passing regulations that harm industrial activity. Let labour, investors, and entrepreneurs interact voluntarily and try to become wealthier by providing solutions to market problems. The market will reward the capable and harm those that make bad decisions at the wrong time. Did it help the US to waste all that money subsidizing a soon to be bankrupt Tesla? Did it help for the SEC to pass regulations that hid just how uneconomic shale oil and gas activities truly were? How is Germany doing with its renewable energy disaster? Or China for that matter?

read full comment
Image of Vangel Vesovski
Vangel Vesovski
on July 23, 2019 at 19:31:20 pm

Yep, and as the old song by The Beach Boys went:

"Wouldn't it be Niiiiccce -if we actually had FREE Market capitalism.
Observe the world as it is (see china, the EU, etc) NOT the Hayekian Libertarian fancy wherein Everyone Plays by the Rules.

And oh BTW: There is ABSOTIVELY NOTHING inherent in "industrial policy" that prevents the operation of "free markets" (small case intended).

The delusions would appear to be far more promient AND pronounced amongst those who seek "market utopia."
history, both past and present, informs us that such a state has never existed NOR will it ever exist except in the fevered minds of academics and their accolytes.

It is understandable, one imagines, for many humans to (want to) believe that EVERYONE / every nation is just like them, that they will behave just like them, that they share the same altruistic motivations as do they -

BUT -
IT IS SIMPLY NOT SO. One need only look at the world / markets to appreciate this simple but "unhappy" truth.
Just one example:

Do American firms DEMAND that companies wishing to do business in the USA TURN OVER their technology.

Well make that two examples:

Are American corporations an adjunct of the US Armed Forces (as are a multitude of Chinese firms)?

Yippee! Hooray! for that always promised but rather elusive Free Market.

I, for one, prefer practical observations over platitudes.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on July 24, 2019 at 09:49:58 am

Practical observations, or better yet historical study combined with sound theory show that Industrial Policy is fascism lite and doomed to failure.

China no more steals IT than the Beach Boys stole ideas for tunes.

Assuming that because China does something, well that must mean it's correct brings to mind lemmings plunging over a cliff...

read full comment
Image of OH-Anarcho-Capitalist
OH-Anarcho-Capitalist
on July 24, 2019 at 18:33:11 pm

Oh, AOC:

1) WE HAVE an Industrial Policy WHETHER the likes of you will admit it or not. The problem is that this *policy* (such as it may be called) is actually informally constructed, managed and steered for the benefit of THOSE who have carved out rather lucrative programs, schemes and financial arrangements FOR THEIR OWN benefit. I would further add that our Foreign Policy is often guided by this same consensus of *policy*. Moreover, after having left office, many of these same architects, see the former VP Joe Biden and the former Secretary of State John Kerry's machination with the Chinese Government via the mechanism of the creation of their son's "VC" companies.
And no, this is not some conspiracy theory, but rather the practical workings of a financial - business - political nexus that cares not one iota for their deplorable fellow citizens. Both BIG Finance and Big Policy are the drivers of this "irrational and ill-considered yet informal poliocy.

2) i have heard of Rose colored glasses BUT your spectacles must be also covered with Quotes from Hayeks own Little Red Book such that it materially impairs your ability to observe that CHINA DOES IN FACT STEAL our technology (at worst) and, at best, demands that technology transfer as the price of admission to its markets. You ought to get out more in the world. Then again, as someone who has first hand knowledge of the "pressures" that China and the PLA place upon *supplicants*, I may be assessing other peoples ability to "observe" this a little too optimistically.
BTW: to assert this, is not as you insinuate, any belittlement of Chinese intelligence - simply a recognition of their cunning AND PLANNING.

As for lemmings, are they not free, as libertarians would wish us all to be? It seems they are as free to follow a *signal* as are so many doctrinaire libertarians *FREE Marketeers*

Enjoy the plunge. It does however have a rather stunning but abrupt ending.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on July 25, 2019 at 07:56:09 am

If Cass's point is that we ought to replace stupid government policy with more intelligent government policy I might agree. We should still consider whether the people in government are capable of devising better policy. A better solution is to get government out of the picture.

read full comment
Image of DeeBee9
DeeBee9
on July 25, 2019 at 11:09:10 am

[…] For it is manufacturing, nationalist conservative thinker Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute argues in a recent essay, that “provides particularly well-paying, stable employment — especially for […]

read full comment
Image of The GOP’s stupid swoon for big government – AEI – American Enterprise Institute: Freedom, Opportunity, Enterprise | TrumpsMinutemen
The GOP’s stupid swoon for big government – AEI – American Enterprise Institute: Freedom, Opportunity, Enterprise | TrumpsMinutemen
on July 25, 2019 at 11:15:29 am

Bingo! Let's call a national industrial policy for what it is: Central planning. We've seen how that worked in the examples you pointed out, and of course in the economy of the now-defunct Soviet Union. The central planners won't know what the needs are of the consumer, or know what resources are available. Even worse, they're most likely be influenced by special interests eager to protect themselves from competition. Imagine if we had had central planners in 1900. They might have wanted to protect the economy from being disrupted by those "crazy horseless carriages" (automobiles, of course). The stagecoach, wagon and buggy-whip producers would have certainly benefitted.

I highly recommend any proponent of national industrial policy read Friedrich Hayek's article "The Use of Knowledge in Society." (It's not very long.) It points out that information on resources and consumer needs is too spread out for an government economic planning to be effective. The article is just as accurate today as it was when it was written in 1945.

read full comment
Image of BeamMeUp
BeamMeUp
on July 25, 2019 at 11:18:25 am

The only constant in free enterprise is change. In central planning, the only constant is bureaucracy.

read full comment
Image of BeamMeUp
BeamMeUp
on July 25, 2019 at 13:37:58 pm

[…] For it is manufacturing, nationalist conservative thinker Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute argues in a recent essay, that “provides particularly well-paying, stable employment — especially […]

read full comment
Image of The GOP’s stupid swoon for big government | Prime Patriot
The GOP’s stupid swoon for big government | Prime Patriot
on July 25, 2019 at 13:54:39 pm

[…] For it is manufacturing, nationalist conservative thinker Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute argues in a recent essay, that “provides particularly well-paying, stable employment — especially for […]

read full comment
Image of The GOP’s stupid swoon for big government – Episode 121: Math! – AEI | TrumpsMinutemen
The GOP’s stupid swoon for big government – Episode 121: Math! – AEI | TrumpsMinutemen
on July 26, 2019 at 00:54:56 am

[…] For it is manufacturing, nationalist conservative thinker Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute argues in a recent essay, that “provides particularly well-paying, stable employment — […]

read full comment
Image of Government expands on Trump watch... - A WordPress Site
Government expands on Trump watch... - A WordPress Site
on July 26, 2019 at 06:11:10 am

[…] For it is manufacturing, nationalist conservative thinker Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute argues in a recent essay, that “provides particularly well-paying, stable employment — especially for […]

read full comment
Image of The GOP’s stupid swoon for big government – For mid-band spectrum, markets can produce better outcomes than regulators can engineer | TrumpsMinutemen
The GOP’s stupid swoon for big government – For mid-band spectrum, markets can produce better outcomes than regulators can engineer | TrumpsMinutemen
on July 26, 2019 at 09:30:22 am

[…] For it is manufacturing, nationalist conservative thinker Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute argues in a recent essay, that “provides particularly well-paying, stable employment — especially for […]

read full comment
Image of The GOP’s stupid swoon for big government – Unity can be worse than partisanship | TrumpsMinutemen
The GOP’s stupid swoon for big government – Unity can be worse than partisanship | TrumpsMinutemen
on July 31, 2019 at 14:13:54 pm

[…] in allocating a nation’s resources. Oren Cass, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, argued that “market economies do not automatically allocate resources well across sectors” and that […]

read full comment
Image of National Conservatism and the Preference for State Control - Quillette
National Conservatism and the Preference for State Control - Quillette
on August 11, 2019 at 11:23:20 am

Overall productivity might be a bit lower for a while, as stateside supply chains are polished. However, as more manufacturing expertise is brought in-house, then more and more Design For Manufacture can be done and you'll soon have better efficiency than you had when you were off-shoring.

read full comment
Image of mcsandberg
mcsandberg
on August 11, 2019 at 23:03:31 pm

[…] Manhattan Institute’s Oren Cass advocates “industrial policy” — what other socialists call “economic planning” — because “market economies do not […]

read full comment
Image of Opinion | ‘National conservatism’ is ‘Elizabeth Warren conservatism’ - Best Trump Memes Website Ever
Opinion | ‘National conservatism’ is ‘Elizabeth Warren conservatism’ - Best Trump Memes Website Ever
on August 12, 2019 at 08:25:21 am

If so private market actors will find it. You miss the point that public servants and politicians who would over see industrial policy are subject to political pressure rather than market profit pressure, I.e., corruption.

read full comment
Image of Dr. Warren L Coats Jr.
Dr. Warren L Coats Jr.
on August 12, 2019 at 09:42:51 am

I've been involved in multiple software outsourcings. Not a one of them ever worked. Why were they done? Because most CEOs hate software, hate programmers and love consultants who tell them what they want to hear. "You don't need these weird software types telling you what can't be done! My outsourcing team can solve all your problems!"

In other words, CEOs follow what's in style and it's part of the job of government to ensure that what's in style isn't hurting its own citizens. It looks like Trump's actions have caused Tim Cook to keep production of the new Mac Pro stateside. As an Apple shareholder, I approve of this, since a lot of engineering went into the thermal management system and producing it in China would simply mean giving the Chinese that engineering for free.

read full comment
Image of mcsandberg
mcsandberg
on August 13, 2019 at 00:16:00 am

Humans make mistakes whether in the private sector or government. An important difference is that mistakes in the private sector punish their bottom line. The government has no bottom line.

read full comment
Image of Dr. Warren L Coats Jr.
Dr. Warren L Coats Jr.
on August 15, 2019 at 16:13:01 pm

[…] Oren Cass wants the U.S. government to adopt a manufacturing-focused “industrial policy.” […]

read full comment
Image of Do Oren Cass’s Justifications for Industrial Policy Stack Up? - G20 Intel
Do Oren Cass’s Justifications for Industrial Policy Stack Up? - G20 Intel
on August 15, 2019 at 16:29:35 pm

[…] Oren Cass wants the U.S. government to adopt a manufacturing-focused “industrial policy.” […]

read full comment
Image of Do Oren Cass’s Justifications for Industrial Policy Stack Up? – ALibertarian.org
Do Oren Cass’s Justifications for Industrial Policy Stack Up? – ALibertarian.org
on August 16, 2019 at 00:56:15 am

[…] Oren Cass wants the U.S. government to adopt a manufacturing-focused “industrial policy.” […]

read full comment
Image of Think Tank West » Do Oren Cass’s Justifications for Industrial Policy Stack Up?
Think Tank West » Do Oren Cass’s Justifications for Industrial Policy Stack Up?
on August 16, 2019 at 10:27:45 am

[…] for the federal government to adopt an explicit “industrial policy.” Chief among them has been Oren Cass, a thoughtful scholar at the Manhattan Institute, whose writings on the dignity of work I’ve […]

read full comment
Image of On Oren Cass and Industrial Policy – ALibertarian.org
On Oren Cass and Industrial Policy – ALibertarian.org
on August 16, 2019 at 11:00:03 am

[…] pushing for the federal government to adopt an explicit “industrial policy.” Chief among them has been Oren Cass, a thoughtful scholar at the Manhattan Institute, whose writings on the dignity of work I’ve […]

read full comment
Image of On Oren Cass and Industrial Policy | NoPartySystem.Com
On Oren Cass and Industrial Policy | NoPartySystem.Com
on August 18, 2019 at 00:47:24 am

[…] Oren Cass wants the U.S. government to adopt a manufacturing-focused “industrial policy.” […]

read full comment
Image of Do Oren Cass's Justifications for Industrial Policy Stack Up? – Cato Institute – ResumeLord
Do Oren Cass's Justifications for Industrial Policy Stack Up? – Cato Institute – ResumeLord
on August 18, 2019 at 21:25:10 pm

[…] 14th — Bastille Day — to the National Conservatism Conference in Washington, DC, Cass argued in favor of the following […]

read full comment
Image of Industrial policy's strange bedfellows | Founders Broadsheet
Industrial policy's strange bedfellows | Founders Broadsheet
on September 03, 2019 at 16:49:20 pm

[…] Cass of the Manhattan Institute also wants to give politicians more control over the private […]

read full comment
Image of Industrial Policy Is a Recipe for Cronyism and Stagnation | International Liberty
Industrial Policy Is a Recipe for Cronyism and Stagnation | International Liberty
on February 21, 2020 at 16:20:46 pm

[…] Cass interprets industrial policy as being oriented towards supporting manufacturing and “vital sectors that might otherwise suffer from underinvestment”. That definition, as always with industrial policy, is loose enough to be applicable to pretty […]

read full comment
Image of Oren Cass as a gift to Bernie Sanders - Econlib
Oren Cass as a gift to Bernie Sanders - Econlib
on February 21, 2020 at 19:27:45 pm

[…] Cass interprets industrial policy as being oriented towards supporting manufacturing and “vital sectors that might otherwise suffer from underinvestment”. That definition, as always with industrial policy, is loose enough to be applicable to pretty […]

read full comment
Image of Oren Cass as a gift to Bernie Sanders | Share Market Pro
Oren Cass as a gift to Bernie Sanders | Share Market Pro
on February 22, 2020 at 12:31:06 pm

[…] Cass interprets industrial policy as being oriented towards supporting manufacturing and “vital sectors that might otherwise suffer from underinvestment”. That definition, as always with industrial policy, is loose enough to be applicable to pretty […]

read full comment
Image of Oren Cass as a gift to Bernie Sanders – CNB Reports
Oren Cass as a gift to Bernie Sanders – CNB Reports
Trackbacks
on August 25, 2020 at 19:46:19 pm

[…] adviser to Senator Mitt Romney. At last summer’s National Conservatism Conference, Mr. Cass argued for a robust “industrial policy” for the United States. That would include a federal program of […]

on August 25, 2020 at 19:48:34 pm

[…] adviser to Senator Mitt Romney. At last summer’s National Conservatism Conference, Mr. Cass argued for a robust “industrial policy” for the United States. That would include a federal program of […]

on August 26, 2020 at 08:06:23 am

[…] adviser to Senator Mitt Romney. At last summer’s National Conservatism Conference, Mr. Cass argued for a robust “industrial policy” for the United States. That would include a federal program of […]

on August 31, 2020 at 06:28:59 am

[…] in new supporters rather than expelling the ones they have. Some conservatives propose a sweeping industrial policy. But rather than swinging from dogmatic laissez-faire to aggressive statism as they’re […]

on August 31, 2020 at 06:57:06 am

[…] in new supporters rather than expelling the ones they have. Some conservatives propose a sweeping industrial policy. But rather than swinging from dogmatic laissez-faire to aggressive statism as they’re […]

on August 31, 2020 at 08:17:50 am

[…] in new supporters rather than expelling the ones they have. Some conservatives propose a sweeping industrial policy. But rather than swinging from dogmatic laissez-faire to aggressive statism as they’re […]

on August 31, 2020 at 08:59:19 am

[…] in new supporters rather than expelling the ones they have. Some conservatives propose a sweeping industrial policy. But rather than swinging from dogmatic laissez-faire to aggressive statism as they’re […]

on August 31, 2020 at 09:02:28 am

[…] in new supporters rather than expelling the ones they have. Some conservatives propose a sweeping industrial policy. But rather than swinging from dogmatic laissez-faire to aggressive statism as they’re […]

on August 31, 2020 at 09:28:18 am

[…] in new supporters rather than expelling the ones they have. Some conservatives propose a sweeping industrial policy. But rather than swinging from dogmatic laissez-faire to aggressive statism as they’re […]

on August 31, 2020 at 09:33:07 am

[…] in new supporters rather than expelling the ones they have. Some conservatives propose a sweeping industrial policy. But rather than swinging from dogmatic laissez-faire to aggressive statism as they’re […]

on August 31, 2020 at 09:49:05 am

[…] in new supporters rather than expelling the ones they have. Some conservatives propose a sweeping industrial policy. But rather than swinging from dogmatic laissez-faire to aggressive statism as they’re […]

on August 31, 2020 at 12:16:58 pm

[…] in new supporters rather than expelling the ones they have. Some conservatives propose a sweeping industrial policy. But rather than swinging from dogmatic laissez-faire to aggressive statism as they’re […]

on August 31, 2020 at 16:56:55 pm

[…] in new supporters rather than expelling the ones they have. Some conservatives propose a sweeping industrial policy. But rather than swinging from dogmatic laissez-faire to aggressive statism as they’re […]

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

Related