Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Paul Ross
What was your point again? You're the one that implied that we had increased production.

One source I linked to in post #640 claimed U.S. manufacturing output rose by 40 percent between 1994 and 2000. The other, Manufacturing Myths says "Yet the National Association of Manufacturers' Web site shows that "manufacturing's share of the U.S. economy, as measured by real GDP, has been stable since the late 1940s.... The overall share remains the same over the business cycle." If real GDP has increased that means they claim that manufacturing has also increased. And in case you forgot, "real" means adjusted for inflation.

If you can find a source, less than 10,000 words would be nice, that claims otherwise, please feel free to link to it.

If the hedonic accounting that miscounts as U.S. production, product that is in fact largely foreign made componentry, then what have you?

Interesting idea. But since GDP is only supposed to include domestic production, I'll tend to lean toward the idea that foreign made components are not involved. But, as always, I'm open to new info that you'd like to provide.

That reminds me, did you ever find your list of free traders who favor higher taxes?

781 posted on 01/07/2006 7:35:14 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot (How much for the large slurpee?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies ]


To: Toddsterpatriot
If real GDP has increased that means they claim that manufacturing has also increased.

Really? It's fairly evident that the NAM site was working the import lobby side of the issue, since the importers co-opted the ogranization.

Share of GDP as a measure? Get "real". Let's look at real numbers. Then we can tell if they and you're dealing with 'real GDP'.

Hedonics represents a given evidence, admitted via Greenspan no less, that our GDP numbers don't carefully extract the foreign componentry from U.S. claims of production.

And furthermore, your own economagic web site's absolute numbers disproved you. So it is clear that real production was at best static, or more likely declined outright after adjusting for inflation...ie..making the numbers 'real', and as a percentage of GDP...if it was, in fact, "stable" there...the conclusion is profoundly more credible that the GDP numbers are not 'real' either.

782 posted on 01/07/2006 7:56:41 AM PST by Paul Ross (My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple...It is this, 'We win and they lose.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies ]

To: Toddsterpatriot
That reminds me, did you ever find your list of free traders who favor higher taxes?

You are the tax. Don't be repetitiously taxing.

783 posted on 01/07/2006 7:59:25 AM PST by Paul Ross (My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple...It is this, 'We win and they lose.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson