[[{“value”:”That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column, here is one excerpt: Then there is the money. European and South Korean infrastructure companies, for example, tend to be much less expensive than US firms. The Buy American Act often prevents them from bidding on US contracts. And when the federal government is spending more
The post Why “Buy American” is not such a great idea appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.”}]]
That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column, here is one excerpt:
Then there is the money. European and South Korean infrastructure companies, for example, tend to be much less expensive than US firms. The Buy American Act often prevents them from bidding on US contracts. And when the federal government is spending more on contracts for US suppliers, it has less money to invest elsewhere.
And:
Under current law, as has been supported by the administrations of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden, the domestic-content requirement is slated to rise to 75% in 2029. That is likely to raise the cost of Buy American provisions even more, especially in a world where more countries are entering the market as cost-effective producers. Furthermore, the higher that percentage, the more likely it is that the US is protecting sectors that spend their money on capital goods, rather than on US labor. Job creation or job protection is likely to dwindle accordingly. In the future, use of the program may cost between $154,000 and $237,000 per job.
The column draws on this NBER working paper by
The post Why “Buy American” is not such a great idea appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
Current Affairs, Economics, Law, Uncategorized
Leave a Reply