Goodbye, Production (and Maybe Innovation)

AMERICAN manufacturers no longer make subway cars. They are imported now, and the skills required to make them are disappearing in the United States. Similarly, imports are an ever-bigger source of refrigerators, household furnishings, auto and aircraft parts, machine tools and a host of everyday consumer products much in demand in America, but increasingly not made here.

the experts shifted the emphasis from production to design and innovation. Let others produce what Americans think up.

But over the long run, can invention and design be separated from production? That question is rarely asked today. The debate instead centers on the loss of well-paying factory jobs and on the swelling trade deficit in manufactured goods. When the linkage does come up, the answer is surprisingly affirmative: Yes, invention and production are intertwined.

"Most innovation does not come from some disembodied laboratory," said Stephen S. Cohen, co-director of the Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy at the University of California, Berkeley. "In order to innovate in what you make, you have to be pretty good at making it — and we are losing that ability."

Franklin J. Vargo, the association’s vice president for international economic affairs, sounds even more concerned than Mr. Cohen. "If manufacturing production declines in the United States," he said, "at some point we will go below critical mass and then the center of innovation will shift outside the country and that will really begin a decline in our living standards."

"It is hard to imagine," Mr. Tonelson said, "how an international economy can remain successful if it jettisons its most technologically advanced components."

I'll be skeptical of your anecdotes and Chinese government statistics. You keep believing the Commies and your little anecdotes.

Actually, I'm not citing the "Chinese government" statistics. But of course, now you're suddenly, and only selectively, apparently skeptical of OUR U.S. measures (i.e., the World Bank) of China's economy. And I will believe real facts, "little anecdotes" over a government fib anytime. You should too.

They hurt their people with their manipulations. I'd prefer not to hurt the American people with your manipulations.

Actually they hurt the "American People" with their tariffs, and the rest of their trade barriers and manipulation. But you don't care about that. You call it the invisible hand, when it isn't. You call it win-win, when it isn't.

Reagan lowered tariffs.

Only selectively. Not wholesale...and for good reason.

Which tariffs do you want to lower?

How about in Foreign countries for a start? And their other trade manipulations. Just as Reagan used ours as a practical lever. He never preached unilateral disarmament in anything. He knew human nature too well. And he was a master at negotiation.

And precisely which taxes most hurt "the U.S. people"? What are the taxes which most impair U.S. choices? How about the taxes which differentially and actively discriminate AGAINST U.S. production? It's as if we are aiding and abetting the foreign mercantalists and their tariffs. How about eliminating the "tariff" of the U.S. capital gains tax? The "tariff" of the U.S. Corporate Income Tax? The "tariff" of the U.S. Personal Income Tax.

I advocate for the ending of these all the time. We never see you doing that. Ever.

So you aren't doing the American People any favors. God save us from people like you who are "protecting us." With protectors like you...who needs enemies?

This could be catastrophic for our economy, especially if they begin to transfer these bonds into euro's

"Catastrophic how?"

See above. A sudden move to the Euro by China along with others countries could cause a dollar collapse, not a mere decline.

and further manipulate their own currency to gain economic advantage.

"So a low Chinese currency is good for them and bad for us?"

Not necessarily, I am speaking about China's efforts to facilitate instability in our markets.

I certainly do not want that for America, nor do I want run away deficits or a declining dollar nor recession.

"A declining dollar is bad for America? I'm noticing an inconsistency in your position."

There is no inconstancy in my statements, I am fully aware of dollar decline value in our products, Again, I am referring to a dramatic decline for reasons covered above.

Our economy is over $13 trillion, their's is about $2 trillion. Ours grew about 3% (about $400 billion) in 2006. How much did their economy grow?

The Chinese economy grew close to 12%. Our economy is certainly larger........for now.

Has Nafta, Cafta and or Gatt create a balance in trade for America?

Why does trade need to be balanced?

It doesn't, but explain why America consistently post billions in the red year upon year while we allow the shenanigans in trade policies of other countries to go on unabated.

Yes, there is a lot of corruption in Mexico.

That's an understatement to the second degree!!

What do you think those foreigners do with all the dollars they earn? They invest them in America.

Yep, in American debt bonds. Most foreign investment these days has been moving to the Eastern block, SE Asia / India and China.

Look, I'm not buying into the argumentative nature of some here on this forum. For every piece of data (or lack thereof) you could provide to show a healthy booming economy, I can provide indicators that spell caution.

Besides, data published by the feds, (which many pro-globalist) isn't worth a hill of beans. The Feds routinely delay, manipulate and cook the numbers depending on various geopolitical concerns or domestic politics.

Hell, one week the government will publish data on a sector, to come back a week or so later and refute it's own data with another piece.

Actually, I'm not citing the "Chinese government" statistics.

You're citing a report printed in Business Week citing the World Bank report using Chinese government numbers. Which you believe is more accurate than a U.S. government report. LOL!

Only selectively. Not wholesale...and for good reason.

Which tariffs would you lower today? Because you're just like Reagan.

How about in Foreign countries for a start?

You mean like NAFTA and CAFTA?

How about eliminating the "tariff" of the U.S. capital gains tax? The "tariff" of the U.S. Corporate Income Tax? The "tariff" of the U.S. Personal Income Tax.

Sounds good to me.

We never see you doing that. Ever.

Just did. Again.

Which actually cuts severely AGAINST your positions.

No. My position was that concerns about domestic war production are irrelevant because modern warfare will occur too fast to produce anything. Your arguments against a smaller military are well placed, but they do not counter my point about production.

And so you should be more skeptical of the smug what-me-worry types.

The what-me-worry types have been right so far in my 50 years. And the doom-and-gloom arguments are the same year after year, so why would I consider them any more correct this year than any of the last 50?

First define "doom mongers".

Paul Ross.

And measured by your lifetime? How long has that been? Fifteen or twenty years?

Lame attempt at insult. Answered above.

Let me point out some "hawks", people who the Left and their tame MSM smeared as "Doom-Sayers" and "War Mongers"...who were proved RIGHT!

The left has more than it's share of incorrect doom mongers. For example, all environmentalists. The population bomb promoters. Plus the anti-nukers, anti-gene modified food people, anti-urban sprawl people, the "we're running out of land fill" people, etc. etc. All those doom mongers, all wrong.

About predictions that were correct: people never remember incorrect predictions, only the correct ones, which is why fortune tellers are able to make a living.

And every single policy pertaining to our industrial preparedness, and explicitly military strategic preparedness for major Great Power war... reeks of appeasement-type thinking.

You've covered two issues, industrial capacity, and military capacity. As I explained above, domestic industrial capacity is irrelevant in modern warfare, even while you are correct that military capacity is necessary.

It wouldn't matter one iota if we bought 100% of our military capacity from overseas, as long as when the shooting starts we had more than our enemey does, because it will all be over in hours.

A sudden move to the Euro by China along with others countries could cause a dollar collapse, not a mere decline.

$700 billion in dollars could cause a "dollar collapse"? What would that do to us? What would it do to China?

The Chinese economy grew close to 12%.

Based on whose data?

Our economy is certainly larger........for now.

If their economy grew 12%, that's about $200 billion. Ours grew over $300 billion.

It doesn't, but explain why America consistently post billions in the red year upon year

Because we buy more than we sell.

while we allow the shenanigans in trade policies of other countries to go on unabated.

That's what trade agreements are for. And we exported over $900 billion in goods last year.

Yep, in American debt bonds.

Among other things. Is that bad? Why?

Besides, data published by the feds, (which many pro-globalist) isn't worth a hill of beans.

I prefer U.S. government data to Chinese government data. I also prefer U.S. government data to anecdotes. But that's just me.

"My position was that concerns about domestic war production are irrelevant because modern warfare will occur too fast to produce anything. "

BS. 25 years ago some enlightened war planners said that future conflicts would all be hi-tech and there would be no "boots" on the ground.

I guess the 130k troops that we have in Iraq the last 4 years disproves that doesn't it?

If you told planners at the Pentagon there could never be another war like WWII they would laugh in your face. A future conflict could grow incrementally over a period of several years into a major war.

"as long as when the shooting starts we had more than our enemey does, because it will all be over in hours."

Are you basing your argument that just because we beat those camel humpers in a few days all other enemies will be as easy to defeat? Do you think a Chinese army of 10 or 15 years in the future will be so easy to beat?

Have you read the reports on our current army stockpiles of supplies? They are depleated. They are robbing bombed out humvees in Iraq for spare parts.

Do you think a Chinese army of 10 or 15 years in the future will be so easy to beat?

First of all, I seriously doubt there will ever be a total war again, unless we first have another dark ages that brings the state of war back to non-mechanized. If we did have such a thing, do you think we would allow China to invade the continental US without resorting to nukes? How long does it take to get an ICBM to Beijing? That's how long the war will last.

I'm not saying we would win or lose, or alive or dead, just that it would be over that quick.

They are robbing bombed out humvees in Iraq for spare parts.

Yeah. And we robbed F-4s at Luke AFB for parts in the 70's. The military never has all it wants. What's your point?

Just did. Again.

No. You didn't. Hog-wash.

WHat do you propose go in their place? Until you do, your position is Lip service only. You spend no time or energy doing so either.

And you do spend all your time and energy promoting trade enemies who do practice mercantilistic predation on the U.S. industrial base. Espousing unilateralism. And opposing the only legitimate alternative to the existing tax structure...which you admit needs to go.

First of all, I seriously doubt there will ever be a total war again

Oh, so now you're a prophet?

unless we first have another dark ages that brings the state of war back to non-mechanized.

Huh. So you're claiming to be Nostradamus?

If we did have such a thing, do you think we would allow China to invade the continental US without resorting to nukes?

Looks increasingly likely.

How long does it take to get an ICBM to Beijing?

An eternity when Bill and Hillary Clinton run the White House.

That's how long the war will last.

Wow. That is way, way, too long.

Until you do, your position is Lip service only.

Your proposal to replace them with a tariff is more than lip service? LOL!

You spend no time or energy doing so either.

Why waste time or energy? If we could shrink the size of government to the point where we could raise enough revenues using a tariff instead of an income/capital gains/corporate tax, I'd be the first to sign up.

And you do spend all your time and energy promoting trade enemies

Wrong. I promote low tariffs for all to benefit all. Both producers and consumers. Buyers and sellers.

And opposing the only legitimate alternative to the existing tax structure...which you admit needs to go.

Ping me when you figure out how to raise enough with tariffs to run the government.

[First of all, I seriously doubt there will ever be a total war again] Oh, so now you're a prophet?

You believe I cannot hold an opinion?

[ unless we first have another dark ages that brings the state of war back to non-mechanized.] Huh. So you're claiming to be Nostradamus?

See above.

[If we did have such a thing, do you think we would allow China to invade the continental US without resorting to nukes?] Looks increasingly likely.

Then why are you worrying about domestic industrial production? Seems you would be more concerned with military policy.

[How long does it take to get an ICBM to Beijing?] An eternity when Bill and Hillary Clinton run the White House.

Nostradamus I presume?

[That's how long the war will last.] Wow. That is way, way, too long.

Did you have a point?

Your original concern on this thread was keeping domestic industrial production strong in case of future total war. I pointed out that modern warfare occurs too quick for industrial production to matter, and you have chosen to make several smart remarks rather than refute my claim.

You could have perhaps offered a different reason for protectionist policies for domestic heavy industry, but you did not.

You lose.

"First of all, I seriously doubt there will ever be a total war again, unless we first have another dark ages that brings the state of war back to non-mechanized."

Narby, who knows what future friend or foe alliances the US will have and what future Hitler type demagogues will arise. Do I ever think China will physically invade the US? No. But I can envision them taking over entire regions in Africa, possible the Middle east and cutting off much needed resources to the US that could jump start a war. In regards to future demagogues look at the rise of Hitler and what how he changed the world in just 12-15 years. Did you read the pollution report about China last week-how the air currents are bringing it to the US? Why the USAD is concerned because the pollution has been starting to effect our crops in Hawaii and the western US?? Depending on how the wind blows it's also effecting India and other countries. Are they going to put up with it? I don't think so.

Your proposal to replace them with a tariff is more than lip service? LOL!

Yes. It was fine with the Republic for most of its first 100+ years. Indeed, the real embarrasing problem was what to do with all those surplusses.

Well sign up then. Its not a chicken or egg first situation. You just resolve to go with it. And then make it work. And you approach it from the standpoint that we should be "pay as you go." Living within our means. This creates a political dynamic that could be used to constrain the spending proclivities of Leftists and RINOs.

Wrong. I promote low tariffs for all to benefit all. Both producers and consumers. Buyers and sellers.

Wrong. You habitually promote only the import side of the issue....i.e., the foreign producers. Period. And do squat to lower the tariffs and other barriers on their populaces of our foreign competitors. And you also don't allow for any coercive countervailing policy leverage...the flexibility to compel them to do so. [ Witness the Administration futility to get China to change. The "A" team came back home with their tails between their legs. LOL!} And you also abdicate our sovereignty via a UN-subsidiary...the WTO...the umpiring over the playing field.

And opposing the only legitimate alternative to the existing tax structure...which you admit needs to go.

Ping me when you figure out how to raise enough with tariffs to run the government.

If you want to spend that much, there is also the additional revenues that would be raised by the additional consumption tax of a National sales tax too.

BTW, the Government ran just fine with only a Tariff until the Civil War, and then again fine after until WW-1. As I noted up above.

Then why are you worrying about domestic industrial production? Seems you would be more concerned with military policy.

We are, and I am. But they are not unconnected.

[How long does it take to get an ICBM to Beijing?] An eternity when Bill and Hillary Clinton run the White House.

Or any other RAT of like nature. From Obama to Edwards...appeasers all.

Nostradamus I presume?

Suit yourself.

[That's how long the war will last.] Wow. That is way, way, too long.

Did you have a point?

Yes. A long, drawn-out-war-of attrition...or of overwhelming tactical nature... is quite possible still. Your wishful thinking not-withstanding. Such thinking as you assert is like something out of Thomas PM Barnett.

Your original concern on this thread was keeping domestic industrial production strong in case of future total war.

And every major stage between, actually.

I pointed out that modern warfare occurs too quick for industrial production to matter, and you have chosen to make several smart remarks rather than refute my claim.

Actually, your remarks are empically invalid, as shown by the current Mideast conflict. Those car-bombs are being freshly manufactured right under our noses, evidently... You could have perhaps offered a different reason for protectionist policies for domestic heavy industry, but you did not. You lose.

Wrong.

Wrong. You habitually promote only the import side of the issue....i.e., the foreign producers.

Nope, I want foreign countries to lower their tariffs too. That's why I supported CAFTA and NAFTA.

And do squat to lower the tariffs and other barriers on their populaces of our foreign competitors.

Since I can only vote in America, the only thing I can do is elect American politicians who support free trade agreements that will lower tariffs in foreign countries.

And you also don't allow for any coercive countervailing policy leverage...the flexibility to compel them to do so.

We'll see how Schumer's coercion works for the next 2 years.

And you also abdicate our sovereignty via a UN-subsidiary...the WTO...the umpiring over the playing field.

The WTO has no power over our sovereignty.

And opposing the only legitimate alternative to the existing tax structure...which you admit needs to go.

So what rate would give us all the revenue we need?

If you want to spend that much, there is also the additional revenues that would be raised by the additional consumption tax of a National sales tax too.

Tariff and a sales tax? You trust the government with that much taxing power?

BTW, the Government ran just fine with only a Tariff until the Civil War, and then again fine after until WW-1. As I noted up above.

I'd celebrate if we shrunk government to pre WWI levels. Not gonna hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

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.