Replies

"Watering down the impact with the nonvalue-added service sector and bloated government portions of the GDP merely sidesteps the issue."

I'm unconvinced.

3.6% of our annual GDP is lost in our annual trade deficit. OK, but how much did our economy grow in that same year? 4.7%.

Moreover, I find it difficult to claim that the service sector, such as doctor extending the productive life of a worker, is not adding even the slightest bit of value.

In fact, we could be ramping up production to world-record levels, but if said manufacturing production was all in horse-buggy-whips that no one wanted to buy, then that manufacturing would be a net drag on our economy.

So I remain unconvinced of even "service" jobs as being "valueless" or manufacturing jobs always being the panacea.

Some of each would seem to be the best course, in fact.

Moreover, I find it difficult to claim that the service sector, such as doctor extending the productive life of a worker, is not adding even the slightest bit of value.

It's not. Medical services are benefits earned by the productive efforts of the worker. No work, no benefits. And the service sector collapses due to the excessive burden of its own demands.

So I remain unconvinced of even "service" jobs as being "valueless" or manufacturing jobs always being the panacea.

If you can't "touch" the product, one really hasn't produced any wealth...I believe that was a Marxian theory. A rather narrow view of what constitutes wealth.

GDP only measures final demand of goods and services (Keynsian concept); it misses all of the intermediate stages of production. So the economy could be greatly understated.

So I remain unconvinced of even "service" jobs as being "valueless" or manufacturing jobs always being the panacea.

For me the issue isn't what the domestic labor is doing, services or manufactures, but how much capital is being invested in it. My concern is that we are engaging in division of labor with other nations without the proper free market framework (which our Constitution provides for the 50 United States), and in so doing causing capital that would otherwise be invested in domestic labor to be invested in foreign labor - the exact OPPOSITE of what Smith identified as the most efficient use of a nation's capital for the purpose of increasing national wealth. As a matter of policy, we should promote domestic industry and domestic capital investment, and discourage activity that would cause that capital investment not to occur. I don't pretend to know what that industry "ought" to be doing, but I damn well want it to be doing it with American labor. Not, mind you, because I have any illusions or delusions of grandeur about labor per se, but because I (selfishly) want to live in a wealthier, more prosperous country. Call me silly.

3.6% of our annual GDP is lost in our annual trade deficit. OK, but how much did our economy grow in that same year? 4.7%.

Not sure where you get your data from but, economagic.com has '02 GDP at about $9.5T and yoy growth at 2.75%

If my math is correct that would put the $435B trade deficit at approx. 4.6% of GDP.