The Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, Washington, D.C.
Posted on 02/08/2006 8:15:08 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
The United States of America has historically enjoyed self-sufficiency in times of both war and peace but in order to better assess its present place in the world as concerns its military and economic strength, it is important to reflect on its foundation. There is daily talk from Wall Street to Capitol Hill with respect to spread sheets and global policy, but it perhaps falls short when it comes down to addressing the average U.S. wage earner, and how both will ultimately affect jobs and the country’s national security and defense. It is important to note, that as our forefathers were fighting for independence from England during the Revolutionary War, seldom do we hear about the underlying and overwhelming task they endured in order to supply an army without an industrial base. In order for success, the Colonies depended upon France and the Netherlands for everything from blankets and clothing to gunpowder, muskets, munitions, and food. Benjamin Franklin bartered a deal with France to ship across the Atlantic Ocean by way of the Netherlands’ St. Eustatius Island, in order for George Washington and his troops to have the means to defend themselves.
In light of the French Revolution at the turn of the 18th century, when the Netherlands were seized by Napoleon and President John Adams came close to war with France, a primary U.S. ally just years earlier, self –sufficiency was the order of the day. In 1791, Alexander Hamilton, the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, was asked by President George Washington and the U.S. Congress to officially document U.S. policy on industrial and military self-sufficiency. It read, “Not only have the wealth, but the independence and security of a country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation, with a view to those great objects, ought to endeavour to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of subsistence, habitation, clothing and defense. The possession of these is necessary to the perfection of the body politic: to the safety as well as to the welfare of the society.”
The Industrial Revolution of the 19th century secured the U.S.policy of self-sufficiency, transforming it into a global power. Due to the strength of its industrialization the U.S. was able to defeat its enemies in World War I. With the advent of the automobile, which Henry Ford learned to mass-produce, weaponry and machinery produced for World War II benefited from the automobile factory. Production of Sherman tanks, Army jeeps, airplanes and PT boats evolved from such civilian U.S. factories. And in the 1950’s the industrial base was modernized for the Korean War effort.
The industrial base and manufacturing for the U.S. military were necessarily intertwined. But following the end of the Cold War there has been a deliberate decomposition of U.S. industry, unprecedented in American history. There are a number of factors which have contributed to U.S. dependence on foreign trade, primarily with India and China, which has not only led to millions of U.S. manufacturing and engineering jobs permanently lost, but paints a grim picture for the long term stability of the U.S. military supply line.
The dependence on foreign oil and the subsequent OPEC oil embargo in the 1970’s, the U.S. policy of deregulation of corporations of the 1980’s, the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 allowing China to become a member, collectively accelerated U.S. dependence on cheap labor offshore. Thus, dependency and reliance on suppliers from all over the world for military equipment and machinery components and parts, required for their manufacture, leaves the U.S. vulnerable.
The Defense Department runs a program called the Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Materials Shortage (DMSMS) at the Tank Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM). Its purpose is to identify shortages of parts, processes and materials necessary to procure for military buyers. A problem for military acquisitions has been procuring weapon system metal castings as a direct result of plant closings. The majority of castings now come from China and other third-world countries. Along with the foreign dependence on metal castings manufacture its research and development also followed the foundry industry offshore.
DMSMS program managers are aware that there are problems in finding sub-parts and components. Not only have replacement parts started to rapidly diminish, but the chemicals needed in their manufacture have as well. Without specific chemicals certain processes cannot be done. For example, there is only one company left in the U.S. that produces a roller cutter for armored plate or heavy steel which was an indirect consequence of supplying armor kits for U.S. Humvees in the War in Iraq. When the Pentagon learned there was an immediate need at the end of 2004, it called for expediency in their manufacture. Sadly, it took almost a year due to the limited facilities producing such.
Another issue arose when a foreign corporation purchased the only U.S. company which produced a chemical used for a common binder which secures windows and aluminum panels in aircraft. The company eventually folded when it could not meet Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Now the U.S. must depend on the company’s offshore subsidiaries.
Similarly, the bearing industry which produces ball-bearings, roller-bearings and anti-friction bearings is an endangered U.S. industry, key to the production of military gear and plays a part in homeland security. They are components necessary to produce electric motors for conveyor belts such as in factories, steel mills, in airports, in mining, and with the equipment used to manufacture automobiles. And bearings are critical to the mechanical components of major weapons systems. Losing bearings manufacturing to foreign shores directly impacts the capabilities of weapons manufacturing should there be a change in the geopolitical landscape and a cut-off from U.S. suppliers, whether through war, terrorism, or Mother Nature.
With the military build-up of China over the past decade by benefit of applying commercial technologies to military weaponry and its having become the largest offshore manufacturing base for U.S. corporations, the U.S. continues a delicate balancing act with a Communist nation as its biggest trade partner. With a U.S. trade deficit with China reaching over $200 billion in 2005, multi-national corporations, once U.S. companies operating in the U.S., are now just based in the U.S.
And with a demand by China for foreign direct investment as their incentive to buy U.S. products, companies like Boeing are acquiescing by not only building major portions of airplanes in China, but also creating Research and Development opportunities for Chinese engineers, in order to show its commitment. Intel and Microsoft have also followed suit with major investment in directly hiring engineers in China.
Endless conflicts of interest abound when it comes to foreign dependence in order for the U.S. to maintain its infrastructure, electrical grid, military weaponry and supplies, air travel and homeland security, to name a few. When smaller U.S. specialty industries vital to the industrial base become extinct on our shores, they now appear huge in a world where alliances are tenuous at best. A global economy at the expense of U.S. sovereignty, security and standard of living is something that the Colonists would not have stood for. They would have found another way. Maybe America still has time to do the same.
That is certainly one indicator. Another is throwing on the trash heap existing skilled, educated workers in favor of the quick buck overseas labor. We have had highly skilled, highly educated people over here that have had their life's work and career literally thrown out with the trash because someone thought that a foreign worker could do it cheaper (note cheaper, not better, or at all). And those aren't buggywhip jobs, either. We're talking high-tech, state-of-the-art R&D in things like EE and CIS.
There are those who say, and you see them right here on FR, that, well, so what, screw 'em, all that matters is making money. If that means selling out American companies, their employees, and the country's infrastructure and hard-won capabilities built up over the years with the blood and sweat of our people, then they say, so be it, in pursuit of that last, almighty dollar. In the end, those who sell us out will reap a bitter harvest, and, sadly, when it comes their turn to be thrown out on the dung heap, they'll wonder, wha hoppen?
Yes, he did. You are too young to remember.
The Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, Washington, D.C.
Speaking for myself, I assure you that I won't come to a conservative website and whine that it'll happen to you.
Any idea's as to what money guy has instore for us in the future?
That Resource/Populace Numeric pie chart margins they will be thinking on that with contingency plans.
maybe they have decided allready tenativley.
so what awaits us down the road?
A Future planetary child birth plan/DNA screen,sterilization,
or does man get culled in some great drama like a rampant virus.....or war.....or both?
Maybe Metropolis goes skyward like Judge Dread movie or 5th Element.
Maybe we all get to stay : )
many of the things you are advocating are in the process of being talked about, like so many pertinent issues in front of our so called leaders.
Unions will never go away, much to your dismay. But many skilled Union jobs that are going away are paying good middle class wages, putting kids through college, buying homes and new cars. Those replacement workers are not capable of sustaining the current standard of living so many people currently enjoy. We can blame reductions in our standard of living to illegal, undocumented workers flooding our job markets and taking jobs from documented, tax paying Americans.
Repealing cumbersome environmental laws has a nice ring that echo's loud in ANWR that drilling for oil and gas vital to America's economy will not happen, or Nelson in Florida attempting to block forever oil and gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico 150 miles off the coast of Florida.
Sounds like progress repealing cumbersome environmental laws???? Not to me.
Workers Comp is a racket I agree. Job safety programs are necessary to accomodate the idiots and illegal immigrants who are looking for jobs nowadays. Translate those safety manuals into four or five languages and maybe people won't get hurt. For the English speaking (not ebonics) Americans who do get injured on the job, just turning them loose with untreated injurys should really put a demand on Medicaid and welfare, considering how easy it is to become disabled. Missouri has tried work comp reform. It has helped nothing. Tilted heavily in the favor of employers, real injurys are given the band aid and iodine treatment. The promised rate reductions have not happened. Actually the cost has increased for work comp premiums. I have first hand experience on both sides.
Eliminating the minimum wage only hurts low income workers. The savings to employers will be pocketed in increased profits. consumers will see no savings.
The Bush tax cut has worked. You have that right. Now if congress can make it permanent.......
Tort reform is only talk. Do you really believe a bunch of elected lawyers are going to limit their income opportunities? Will they shoot themselves in the foot? Will they close the loopholes in the laws that they build in, because litigation is a part of every law? No. don't see it. Only solution to maybe make progress in real Tort Reform is to quit electing lawyers to congress.
Capitalism is founded on the principle of earning a fair wage for a good days work, with a promise of earning more as an incentive for doing a good job. Cutting pay as you propose can only work if it is across the board for all workers of all professions so there are no discrepencys in the standard of living. So if you are willing to cut your pay by 100% when the Union workers cut their pay accordingly then that is fair. But if you don't take an appropriate pay cut, you become a hypocrite.
Not so much a "whine" as a warning. Sell out your country and you end up selling out yourself.
"Our?" How is "our" standard of living falling? Every job I have lost in my life, A. Pole's unfamiliarity with my age notwithstanding, has been to someone who could do the job more cheaply. My standard of living fell (temporarily), but I could see no logical reason to conclude that everyone else's was falling as well.
Let me be more specific.....middle class standards of living are falling. I know personally several peple who's average paying jobs were exported to Mexico. No new car or larger home in their future. On the other hand Lawyers, doctors, and the Country Club class seem to be fairly comfortable and moving upward in their standard of living. But they also may employ the illegals who work cheap because no taxes are paid or withheld on the worker.
If I could work and not pay taxes, I think I could work for less as well. And my standard of living would not suffer.
In conclusion, it is not so much the wages that drive up the cost of everything, it is the taxes. Make more, pay more taxes. Unless you are wealthy enough to juggle money into tax shelters so as to pay a smaller percentage, and hire illegal workers knowing little will be done if they are caught.
Add up the cost of medical treatment, and other taxpayer supported services and handouts given to the illegals. Eventually that cost will drain resources which will have to be replenished with higher taxes....... and the standard of living for the working American citizen slide lower and lower.
I propose taking every major military weapons, support and C4I system and creating a highly detailed supply chain map, down to at least the lowest level components and perhaps even the raw materials below them. All suppliers and their locations would be listed. For each supplier and location, a risk prioritization number would be calculated based on multiple risk and mitigation factors. Any high scores would automatically roll up to the top. It would be an interesting (and frightening) exercise. Perhaps some of those who preach that great war is an impossibility are deluding themselves precisely because they have a sense just what this exercise would reveal. To them, great war must be kept out of mind because we'd lose.
Try to run one of them little high reliability fans used to cool electronics without ball bearings. In a real war, we'd do like we did in WW2 .... that is, if we even could do it!
The paradox you have alluded to is this. When the world moves from an interwar to a great war mode, all the rules that folks like Thomas P.M. Barnett and Thomas L. Freidman consider to be written in stone instantly cease to apply. The shopping mall culture would end on the first day of the war.
So you therefore assume that because there has been a 60 year interwar period (defined as the absense of major war between great powers) that we shall never have another great war. Correct?
That was not a real war. In fact, the most recent real war, fought to result in unconditional enemy surrender of another great power or powers, ended in 1945.
Most of the key decision makers in corporations are either part of the Davos Culture (globalist utopians who dream of whorled peas) or are doctrinaire radical libertarians who simply despise the idea of a strong nation state. I know this from personal dealings. There are some real pieces of work out there. How can you blame them? Look at what they teach in school and what is in all the trade rags? The average exec gets almost zero exposure to anything besides the "World Is Flat" mantra - group think has taken its toll. Execs barely have time to digest their own corporate data and rely on flunkies to digest the externals. This is a deep hole we are in, far worse than even Henry Ford dug at his worst.
heard that
We can't mass produce Nike shoes what will we do?! My lord what to do if we can't make cotton t-shirts??
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.