4 ms·

It's not necessarily good though. A multi-billion $ weapons system built in America for the US taxpayer, even if it is never deployed or even abandoned, counts

It's not necessarily good though. A multi-billion $ weapons system built in America for the US taxpayer, even if it is never deployed or even abandoned, counts as a $Bn manufacturing output. As a famous economist said - from a GDP point of view the ideal person is someone undergoing cancer treatment during an expensive divorce

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
gscott 16y ago
And many of those components going into these products come from elsewhere. A manufacturing company I worked with bought parts from all over the world and had few US parts. When I tried to increase the number of parts they were using from the US they said good luck and I failed because nothing was available and no one wanted to make what I wanted (for example I wanted 1,000 metal tubes bent, to make them into legs... there were plenty of places that I visited could do it but they didn't want to so it ended up being done in Mexico).
- uytrhyujkujhy 16y ago
  From a macro economic point of view it doesn't matter If your stealth bomber uses $100 parts made in the USA or $10 parts from china with the difference going in the CEOs bonus - doesn't make any difference when the taxpayer is billed $1000
  - gscott 16y ago
    Which is part of my point, for that $1000 in value sometimes our only task is putting the pieces together. It can't last, China wants to do that too.
    - uytrhyujkujhy 16y ago
      That was sort of my original point, much of the US high value engineering (defense/transport/infrastructure) is for the US government. Which means that the more the taxpayer spends on overpriced defense contracts and cost overruns the better US industrial output looks
      - gscott 16y ago
        I agree, paid for by the Fed buying U.S. Treasuries or by banks buying U.S. Treasuries. It is bound to fail sometime. What could save us is China failing first, property bubble, major projects, the 24/7 work, bad loans, floated by the Chinese as well but is backed by their Treasury bond holdings and the fact that no one knows how much money they print.
      - enjo 16y ago
        I keep seeing this, but never a citation. Looking at the best data I could find: http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/m3/prel/pdf/table1p.pdf http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/m3/prel/pdf/table1p.pdf Total output: 436,031 Excluding defense: 424,680 Making defense, at least how it's defined in this report, merely 2% of the total output. I'm not sure how much of that 2% is going to the U.S. government as these defense contractors also produce quite a bit for other countries. That probably doesn't cover the total of it, but I just can't find any substantiation that the government is buying up a significant amount of the manufacturing output. Does someone have a source to help me better understand this?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

gscott 16y ago

And many of those components going into these products come from elsewhere. A manufacturing company I worked with bought parts from all over the world and had few US parts. When I tried to increase the number of parts they were using from the US they said good luck and I failed because nothing was available and no one wanted to make what I wanted (for example I wanted 1,000 metal tubes bent, to make them into legs... there were plenty of places that I visited could do it but they didn't want to so it ended up being done in Mexico).

uytrhyujkujhy 16y ago
From a macro economic point of view it doesn't matter If your stealth bomber uses $100 parts made in the USA or $10 parts from china with the difference going in the CEOs bonus - doesn't make any difference when the taxpayer is billed $1000
- gscott 16y ago
  Which is part of my point, for that $1000 in value sometimes our only task is putting the pieces together. It can't last, China wants to do that too.
  - uytrhyujkujhy 16y ago
    That was sort of my original point, much of the US high value engineering (defense/transport/infrastructure) is for the US government. Which means that the more the taxpayer spends on overpriced defense contracts and cost overruns the better US industrial output looks
    - gscott 16y ago
      I agree, paid for by the Fed buying U.S. Treasuries or by banks buying U.S. Treasuries. It is bound to fail sometime. What could save us is China failing first, property bubble, major projects, the 24/7 work, bad loans, floated by the Chinese as well but is backed by their Treasury bond holdings and the fact that no one knows how much money they print.
    - enjo 16y ago
      I keep seeing this, but never a citation. Looking at the best data I could find: http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/m3/prel/pdf/table1p.pdf http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/m3/prel/pdf/table1p.pdf Total output: 436,031 Excluding defense: 424,680 Making defense, at least how it's defined in this report, merely 2% of the total output. I'm not sure how much of that 2% is going to the U.S. government as these defense contractors also produce quite a bit for other countries. That probably doesn't cover the total of it, but I just can't find any substantiation that the government is buying up a significant amount of the manufacturing output. Does someone have a source to help me better understand this?