3 ms·

All it would take to 'fix' our economic woes would be to reindustrialize. Coupled with high import tarrifs - in the range of 30-60% as was set historically duri

by Kaizyn 16y ago

All it would take to 'fix' our economic woes would be to reindustrialize. Coupled with high import tarrifs - in the range of 30-60% as was set historically during the periods of growth in the US, it wouldn't take long to restore the US 'productivity' and industrial output. It would mean that the large profit-seeking organizations in the US would make less money over time, but it would be better for the average American workers.

sudont 16y ago
"Have you no shame?" I bet you do, and everyone else here too. The problem is that American executives don't. Look at the pay gap between American and European or Japanese executives: 2x European executives, 4x for the Japanese and Koreans. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/world/americas/18iht-letter.4637416.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/world/americas/18iht-lette... While there's some fiscal rules in place to benefit society in those countries, the main cause of this disparity is purely greed in American executives. With the way that the current top players are willing to sit on production startups, there's no way to reindustrialize without complete societal change. Namely, reducing everyone's consumption and increasing the uptake of domestically produced, high-quality and long-lasting goods. Since the current system favors shameless outsourcing and cheap goods, your simple, effective plan is completely stonewalled.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
Unless you are referring to the recent recession (from which the graphs indicate we are recovering), we never de-industrialized. Our industrial output is higher than ever before. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/INDPRO http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/INDPRO http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IPMAN http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IPMAN
- pohl 16y ago
  I wonder what those graphs would look like when normalized by the growth in total GDP over time. (I took 're-industrialize' to mean as a percentage of output).
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Why wonder when you can use the search box? http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDPC96 http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDPC96 They both increased by about 6.5x from 1950 to 2007. Of course, I'm also not sure why the growth of non-industrial sectors of the economy is a bad thing, or represents a decline at all. I've learned a bit of martial arts over the past year or two - does that mean I need to "re-computerize" my skillset?
    - pohl 16y ago
      I'm no economist, but I believe the concern over manufacturing continuing to shrink as a percentage of U.S. economic activity comes from the question of whether the segments that are replacing it are things that bring money into the national economy. Do service sector jobs represent exportable economic activity? Are the sectors that replace manufacturing easily outsourced? I think the issue is a little too complex than for a single rising trend-line to put us at ease.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        ...whether the segments that are replacing it... No sector has "replaced" manufacturing. Some sectors of the economy may have grown faster, but manufacturing has also grown. It's much the same with skills. My martial arts skills have grown more quickly than my computer skills recently, but I've become more skilled at both programming and fighting. Our economy provides both manufactured goods and massages - historically it only produced the former. That's a good thing.
        pohl 16y ago
        No sector has "replaced" manufacturing. That's not true if you think structurally, as a percentage of the whole. The analogy to skills is dubious. A closer parallel might be the time you spend at a given activity. If you become obsessed with your martial arts, and you quit your job without finding a way to make your kata profitable, then you would have need to worry about your finances, yes?
civilian 16y ago
If we passed high import tariffs then other nations would pass reactionary import tariffs and make it harder for our goods to be sold overseas. In general, it would lower trade. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act
- eru 16y ago
  You don't need the reaction argument. High tariffs are bad, no matter if the other guys decides to also bang their head against the wall or not.

by Kaizyn 16y ago

sudont 16y ago

"Have you no shame?" I bet you do, and everyone else here too. The problem is that American executives don't. Look at the pay gap between American and European or Japanese executives: 2x European executives, 4x for the Japanese and Koreans. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/world/americas/18iht-letter.4637416.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/world/americas/18iht-lette... While there's some fiscal rules in place to benefit society in those countries, the main cause of this disparity is purely greed in American executives. With the way that the current top players are willing to sit on production startups, there's no way to reindustrialize without complete societal change. Namely, reducing everyone's consumption and increasing the uptake of domestically produced, high-quality and long-lasting goods. Since the current system favors shameless outsourcing and cheap goods, your simple, effective plan is completely stonewalled.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Unless you are referring to the recent recession (from which the graphs indicate we are recovering), we never de-industrialized. Our industrial output is higher than ever before. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/INDPRO http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/INDPRO http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IPMAN http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/IPMAN

pohl 16y ago
I wonder what those graphs would look like when normalized by the growth in total GDP over time. (I took 're-industrialize' to mean as a percentage of output).
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Why wonder when you can use the search box? http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDPC96 http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDPC96 They both increased by about 6.5x from 1950 to 2007. Of course, I'm also not sure why the growth of non-industrial sectors of the economy is a bad thing, or represents a decline at all. I've learned a bit of martial arts over the past year or two - does that mean I need to "re-computerize" my skillset?
  - pohl 16y ago
    I'm no economist, but I believe the concern over manufacturing continuing to shrink as a percentage of U.S. economic activity comes from the question of whether the segments that are replacing it are things that bring money into the national economy. Do service sector jobs represent exportable economic activity? Are the sectors that replace manufacturing easily outsourced? I think the issue is a little too complex than for a single rising trend-line to put us at ease.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      ...whether the segments that are replacing it... No sector has "replaced" manufacturing. Some sectors of the economy may have grown faster, but manufacturing has also grown. It's much the same with skills. My martial arts skills have grown more quickly than my computer skills recently, but I've become more skilled at both programming and fighting. Our economy provides both manufactured goods and massages - historically it only produced the former. That's a good thing.
      - pohl 16y ago
        No sector has "replaced" manufacturing. That's not true if you think structurally, as a percentage of the whole. The analogy to skills is dubious. A closer parallel might be the time you spend at a given activity. If you become obsessed with your martial arts, and you quit your job without finding a way to make your kata profitable, then you would have need to worry about your finances, yes?

civilian 16y ago

If we passed high import tariffs then other nations would pass reactionary import tariffs and make it harder for our goods to be sold overseas. In general, it would lower trade. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

eru 16y ago
You don't need the reaction argument. High tariffs are bad, no matter if the other guys decides to also bang their head against the wall or not.