Posted on 08/31/2003 9:39:43 AM PDT by expat_panama
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:07:19 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
So much whining and so few facts- some how the US survived that 'giant sucking sound'.
Welcome home!!!
Have you returned or are you new here in Panama?
Thank you for the post.
My very best wishes,
Gatun
Good point. Argentina is also surviving despite all this whining.
Doesn't that address your point?
Is there something in particular you take issue with? I agree that numbers can easily be manipulated but what error, either in facts or in reasoning, do you see in this article?
The End of History
The End of the Business Cycle
The End of US Manufacturing"
Global Cooling
Global Warming
Scarcity of Petroleum
Endangered Species (as if we can't clone them back)
DDT Fear-mongering
Nuclear Power fear-mongering
Global Over-Poulation Nonsense
"Diversity is Our Strength"
Central Maine has been losing manufacturing jobs recently, but only in what were dying industries anyway.
Paper and shoes, both pretty much uncompetitive in this neck of the woods.
On the other hand, construction of all sorts, commercial and residential, is really strong.
While Mr. Uchitelle first began whining about manufacturing being "downsized," it actually grew by 5.3 percent a year from 1992 through 2000. Manufacturing then fell 4.1 percent in 2001 (the bottom of his "trend") but rose at a 6.1 percent pace during the first three quarters of last year. What has been unusual about U.S. manufacturing was not the inevitable recession in 2001 but the unusually long and strong expansion for the preceding eight years. About half of the unusually strong gains came from the manufacture of high-tech equipment, which is a lot more valuable than T-shirts.
Unfortunately Mr. Reynolds does not cite where he gets his index data so it is not possible to demonstrate what is wrong with it, other than it does not reflect what the Dept of Commerce BEA data shows, which is that manufacturing has declined some 27% by dollar volume over the last 15 years. We all know many companies have moved offshore and taken jobs with them. While Manufacturing has improved slightly over the last 2 months, clearly it by no means makes up for its losses over the last 15 years.
Mr. Reynolds argues "About half of the unusually strong gains came from the manufacture of high-tech equipment, which is a lot more valuable than T-shirts." Well, I've shown below the electronics equipment contribution to manufacturing, and while it is a contribution, it by no means makes up half, nor has manufacturing had strong gains.
Here is the Dept of Commerce BEA data from which most analysts, companies and economists get their data. Unlike Mr. Reynolds who has not 'shown hs work', I've provided links and tables so you can verify for yourself.
From GDP by Industry in Current Dollars As a Percentage of GDP: at http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn2/gposhr.htm:
I have extracted the manufacturing share of GDP for 1987 through 2001, along with the electronic equipment portion of manufacturing:
Line 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1 Gross domestic product......................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 12 Manufacturing.................................... 18.7 19.2 18.5 17.9 17.4 17.1 17.0 20 Electronic and other electric equipment...... 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.8 Line 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 1 Gross domestic product......................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 12 Manufacturing.................................... 17.3 17.4 16.8 16.6 16.3 16.0 15.5 14.1 20 Electronic and other electric equipment...... 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.4
For all of manufacturing, for 1988 through 2001 there has been a decline of 27% (I trust no one will argue 2002 data, when published, will make up for those losses).
Sometimes the BEA's Real GDP chained data is used in similar calculations. These calculations are invalid because of how chained data is produced and tabulated. Here is the BEA's warnining note on such calculations.26.56 percent = 19.2 - 14.1 / 19.2 x 100
Note.--Chained (1996) dollar series are calculated as the product of the chain-type quantity index and the 1996 current-dollar value of the corresponding series, divided by 100. Because the formula for the chain-type quantity indexes uses weights of more than one period, the corresponding chained-dollar estimates are usually not additive.That note comes from the BEA's Real Gross Domestic Product by Industry in Chained (1996) Dollars in which the aggregates in a chained dollar series are not additive, which means that the components don't add up to the total GDP, which means that each component is not represented in its proper proportion or share of the total GDP, which ultimately means one can not compute manufacturing's percent of 2001 GDP as:
16.2 ~ 16.17 = 1,490.3 (from col 2001 line 12) / 9,214.5 (from col 2001 line 1)
That math, normally valid, is invalid with chained data. That's why the BEA provides tables with GDP share computed such as Gross Domestic Product by Industry in Current Dollars As a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product
Manufacturing's decline is about 27% from 1988 to 2001.
Mr. Reynolds also argues "Efforts to stir up "public agitation" about China are based on lies. China accounts for only 18 percent of our imports of merchandise. Chinese imports seem bigger because they are concentrated in clothing and consumer goods, which are far more visible than more costly industrial supplies and equipment." Again, he cites no tables or reports on which he bases his conclusion. Below are the Trade Departments data on our top 10 trading partners and the 3 largets by volume Canada, Mexico, and China, and the three largest by deficit, China, Canada, and Mexico.
For the 1st half or 2003 thru June, our 1st largest deficit is $53B with China, averaging $10B/month, on the 3rd largest volume of $79B: For June alone, see the U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN GOODS AND SERVICES - June 2003
Deficits were recorded, in billions of dollars, with China $10.0 ($9.9), Western Europe $8.0 ($8.3), Japan
$5.4 ($4.5), OPEC $4.0 ($4.4), Canada $3.8 ($3.8), Mexico $3.4 ($3.4), Taiwan $1.1
($1.4), Korea $1.0 ($0.9), Brazil $0.6 ($0.5), and Argentina $0.1 ($0.1).
Further, our total trade balance deficit with China is the largest (see U.S. Trade Balances by Country and Go to 'C' fo4r China and Canada data and 'M' for Mexico data:
Trade with China : 2003NOTE: All figures are in millions of U.S. dollars
|
Trade with Canada : 2003NOTE: All figures are in millions of U.S. dollars
|
Trade with Mexico : 2003NOTE: All figures are in millions of U.S. dollars
|
Further, our top 10 trading partnbers can be found at Top Ten Countries with which the U.S. Trades - June 2003
and by checking the trade balance by country, our June 2003 deficit with Canada is $26B, and with Mexico is $21B, but with China ouir deficit is largest at $53B, even though the total trade is 3rd. i.e. We trade more with Canada and Mexico, but China buys far less from us than we import from them, resulting in our largest trade deficit being with China.
Top Ten Countries with which the U.S. Trades
For the month of June 2003
The values given are for Imports and Exports added together.
These Countries represent 68.77% of U.S. Imports, and 66.36% of U.S. Exports in goods.Year To Date Total in Total in Billions Billions Country Name of U.S. $ of U.S. $ CANADA 33.38 197.70 MEXICO 19.34 114.21 CHINA 14.23 79.36 JAPAN 14.14 84.15 FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY 8.08 48.02 UNITED KINGDOM 6.46 38.12 KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 5.21 29.22 TAIWAN 4.18 23.02 FRANCE 3.93 22.96 MALAYSIA 3.06 16.72
Mr Reynolds closes with "If the rhetoric gets too annoying, ask the authors for a few facts. They just hate that" having himself provided only rhetoric and no facts. Above is what verifiable facts look like.
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.