Posted on 06/11/2005 4:31:17 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot
Chinese companies assemble the parts into computers, televisions, telephones, toys and other office machines and consumer electronics and ship those back to the United States as well as to third countries.
Jobs that would formerly have been in the U.S. Laugh all you want about the supposedly "snap together" low-tech part of the equation, (do you honestly think that's all their doing?) jobs you don't think our country could use back...
That presumed situation is becoming less and less the case over time, as the Chinese add more and more technology componentry of their own. So your argument:
Thanks for making my point for me. We export high value added goods like integrated circuits and some low skilled low paid Chinese worker clicks the pieces together and turns then into toys and phones."
...is undermined by the fact that we import them right back here to the country where we used to do the whole thing. Pretty callous Todd. Even for you.
Anyways, consider that that portion of the report was anecdotal...note it doesn't give a quantitative measure of Chinese high technology componentry now added. Think about the numbers. We import $1.468 trillion, and export only $804.2 billions in 2004. The big spread likely indicates we are farming out a huge fraction of the "value added" industrial component. And if a big chunk of what we "export" is just coming back to our own market, then we really are "exporting" even less than we think.
BTW, you should be aware that you misspoke previously contending our export sector was $1.15 trillion in 2004. According to the report supplied by 1Rudeboy the U.S. exports in 2004 were only $804.2 billion. Our imports, meanwhile, were $1,468.3 billions.
As abstracted from the following summary table in Annex I:
U.S. exports of goods and services (including investment earnings) in 2004 are 22-fold greater than 1970 and 75 percent greater than 1994.
U.S. imports of goods and services (2004 $1,468.3 billions U.S. Imports) are 34-fold greater than 1970 and 117 percent greater than 1994.
With the value of U.S. exports (2004 $804.2 billions) increasing less than that of imports, the total deficit on goods and services trade (excluding earnings and payments on foreign investment) increased by approximately $119 billion from $497 billion in 2003 (4.5 percent of GDP) to $616 billion in 2004 (5.5 percent of GDP). The U.S. deficit in goods trade alone increased by $98 billion from $548 billion in 2003 (5.0 percent of GDP) to $664 billion in 2004 (5.9 percent of GDP). The services trade surplus declined by $3 billion from $51
Because there are problems in this recovery. Pretending everything is hunky dory while GM falters is just sad. [Prosaic enough for you?]
I didn't say the jobs were worthless, I said we created the high tech parts that the low tech, low skilled Chinese would assemble.
because of the part that you failed to bold, which said: Chinese companies assemble the parts into computers, televisions, telephones, toys and other office machines and consumer electronics and ship those back to the United States as well as to third countries
I said:
Thanks for making my point for me. We export high value added goods like integrated circuits and some low skilled low paid Chinese worker clicks the pieces together and turns then into toys and phones. Yeah, we really need to get those jobs back. Never mind the high tech parts we're making here. LOL!
Yeah, only mentioning 2 of the 4 specific consumer goods really ruined my point. Not!
...is undermined by the fact that we import them right back here to the country where we used to do the whole thing. Pretty callous Todd. Even for you.
Yeah, making the expensive innards and paying a Chinese worker a buck to put them together is pretty callous. And then correcting you is even more callous.
Vote for Paul Ross, he'll bring low skill manufacturing (well really assembly work) back to America!!! Kids can't read? Paul will make sure they can earn the buck an hour we used to ship to China!! Good idea Paul.
BTW, you should be aware that you misspoke previously contending our export sector was $1.15 trillion in 2004. According to the report supplied by 1Rudeboy the U.S. exports in 2004 were only $804.2 billion. Our imports, meanwhile, were $1,468.3 billions.
Actually no. If you go to page 11 of that report, you'll see we exported an estimated $339.9 billion in services. That's where my $1.15 trillion of goods and services number came from.
Economic growth near 4% a year? 5.2% unemployment? Exports at a record level? Homeownership at an all time high? Household net worth at a record level? Doesn't matter if a few hundred thousand GM workers are running their company into the ground. Get it?
But are they? Clearly with a big chunk just re-imported it is an open question.
You could just as easily say imports aren't that high, a lot of them are our own goods shipped to a poor country for assembly.
You never answered my Euro question. When was it first issued/traded and what was it worth?
Or don't you know the answer? No info from EPI for you?
The automtive companies,were the foundation for the industrial war machine that helped us win WW-II. We lose our native automotive companies and the like, and we're placing future national defense at risk. As we are seeing more and more every day, the nation's economy is too weak and too small to sustain the small, cottage industry defense shops. Rumsfeld is showing every sign of just giving up and outsourcing our national defense hardware.
There is a need for healthy, large, and American automotive companies. I suppose you think BMW, Hyundai and Honda are American because of their couple American plants?
Yeah, because if we need them during a time of war we won't seize their plants, right?
Not answering the Euro question 'cause you don't know the answer? Or because the answer makes your currency whining look ridiculous?
Yup, $12 trillion dollar economy is too small to do much of anything, right? Like I said, every time I read your posts, I find something else to laugh at.
So why do it? There has to be enough value-added to justify the double cost of transshipment each way. Anyways, you have not denied that the Chinese are adding more of the sophisticated portions over time as their technology advancement proceeds apace.
You never answered my Euro question.
What's so important that you want to know? I thought you knew it all? So look it up yourself.
Rumsfeld isn't laughing about it.
"There is a need for healthy, large, and American automotive companies."
How many American cars have you bought in the past year?
None this year. My 2003 is just fine. How many did you?
You're the one whining about the dollar decline.
T'sk. Don't forget the yen. The Pound. Etc.
"None this year. My 2003 is just fine."
I see that you are not helping make large, healthy, and American automobile companies. Practiceth what thou preacheth.
"How many did you?"
None. I refuse to subsidize the production of s**t just because it's "made in America."
Yeah, 135 Yen to the dollar obviously destroyed Japan in 2002. And 109 Yen to the dollar today means we're doomed. We didn't survive that level in 2001 or 2004. Scary!!!
How about gold Paul? "...can you say CURRENCY DEBAUCHMENT?" Gold must be at a record high, right? Whenever a nation weakens its currency people flock to gold.
So what's the price of gold? Making a new record everyday? Must be $2000 an ounce.
Or maybe you should unbunch your panties?
An excellent article.
BTTT
The only part of Hamilton that you can appreciate is his advocation for a strong central federal government but you disdain his views of economics - that is if you've read your history. And an adoration ditto for the strong federal government tendencies of Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln. As for Ronald Reagan, he was committed to trade but had to walk a fine political tightrope to avoid isolating the economic know-nothings such as yourself.
Your "rising disposable income" is measured against [what?] the U.S. dollar. The U.S. GDP measured by a comparative currency as a deflator doesn't look so hot, now, does it?
I'm sorry, I should have written "real disposable income". However, the last time I used the concept of "real" (meaning: adjusted for inflation) it baffled you so badly that you came acRoss as totally ignorant in your reply. By the way, it's measured by the US dollar and it has grown in real terms; would you like to see the data set once again?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.