I'm John Bachelor with my colleague Professor Richard Epstein of the Hoover Institution,

commenting on the Vice President of the United States's proposal in Pittsburgh in these

last days for the economy to be transformed by manufacturing if I understand correctly.

The number offered is a hundred billion dollars subsidizing manufacturing.

This would be a form of onshoreing or reshoring factory floors that have

generally been said to be in China or other countries and not here.

This is a major concern for all the candidates this year, not just the presidential candidates.

However, in addition to that, the Vice President has other proposals, a final price tag over a trillion dollars. That is the controversy. However, we want to

begin with manufacturing. The question is, is America still a manufacturing state?

I've read different opinions and one says we're better off being a services state.

Richard, can $100 billion revive what left for China some decades ago?

A hundred billion dollars is a huge amount to the budget that's in a tiny sum of money with

respect to an economy which is probably around 30 trillion or more dollars.

But what happens is it's not clear how you revive manufacturing.

I can give you two scenarios.

For instance, to try to get good union jobs and she cares more about the jobs than in manufacturing.

But essentially the key to successful manufacturing in my situation is to make this thing

highly do you have to make capital intensive so that you don't have to deal with unions at all.

Unions are the most reactionary force in the United States.

They're more interested in work rules and the division of spoil, making sure

that nobody gets fired. The idea that some are going to have a manufacturing plant which

is driven by unions is just crazy. No investor in his right mind will invest any money if he knows that the price that he has to

...