4 ms·

Why the implication that we measure industrialisation in number of people? People are almost categorically not a factor in industrialisation. It is all about pr

by roenxi 3y ago

Why the implication that we measure industrialisation in number of people? People are almost categorically not a factor in industrialisation. It is all about processes, technologies, expertise, organisation and economics. The English speaking world has been on a decades-long campaign to reign in industry. Energy availability has been reduced. Environmental protection has been given supremacy. Manufacturing outsourced to Asia. An impenetrable net of regulations put in place to force businesses to conform to the average. There is the pattern of bailing out incompetent managers so that the financial system doesn't have to reform. In that environment, number of people is a weak metric. The US has people, educated people and otherwise great people. I don't think at any point anyone has accused this of being a people problem. The issue is that capable people are being prevented from improving the situation.

kibwen 3y ago
> The issue is that capable people are being prevented from improving the situation. What situation, specifically, needs to be improved? The US Navy does not, at present, have any need whatsoever to drastically increase the size of its fleet. Every ship that gets built is a ship that needs to be manned and maintained, which siphons money from elsewhere. We can bemoan the inefficiency of the existing shipbuilders, but that's just how the US sells welfare programs to conservative voters. If you think that a hot war with China is in the cards, forget investing in shipbuilding infrastructure and instead put that money towards onshoring the rest of the national critical supply chain, much of which is in far more dire straits (ahem) than the shipyards.
- thereisnospork 3y ago
  Shipbuilding inefficient and the lack of onshore critical supply chain are two symptoms of the same problem: whether it's chips, shells, or ships: production capacity is critical in any prolonged conflict - which is something we've been agnostically gutting and impeding. It's desirable that we be able to build ships well[0] because being able to build ships well (or not) is a reasonable proxy for being able to build drones, fighter planes, or ballistic missles (whatever the next war calls for). [0]Read: unacceptable for it to be otherwise for a superpower that would like to stay one. Actually cranking out ships is another thing but the capacity needs to be there (and tested/validated accordingly).
- roenxi 3y ago
  If your argument is that US shipbuilding is supposed to be a welfare project then all is well. I suppose my mistake was thinking that the industry was there to build ships. > The US Navy does not, at present, have any need whatsoever to drastically increase the size of its fleet. How much of US military spending should be classed as welfare? Between Ukraine and Israel the US appears to be in a 1.5 front war and the European front hasn't covered itself in glory. This might be a good time to think about re-purposing the military from welfare projects to defence, if there is a hot war with China it'll be US vs. the world's preeminent industrial superpower. It'd be wise to prepare before it becomes necessary, they learn how to build things faster than the US does. I don't think it is likely, but we've seen this last year how close the US is to a 3-front war. There are uncomfortable odds they'd lose; their ability to sustain overseas operations is in question. We're already looking at a debt crisis with what they pulled off in the last 20 years and that was mainly a fight with guerrillas and goat herders.
  - jholman 3y ago
    Characterizing the US's current commitments in Ukraine and Israel as 1.5 fronts is baffling. Neither of those constitutes even a tiny fraction of the American capability to wage war. Yes, there are some commitments in the Eastern Med, but as Ford heads home, the Bataan ARG of literally three ships and zero full-sized aircraft carriers is judged sufficient to hold that down, because remember that their role in Israel is to, uh, do exactly nothing. Now, putting aside Israel-as-such, there is Ike's group in the Red Sea. The Red Sea presence isn't directly about Israel, but about Houthi threats to global shipping. If the US was in a hot war, global shipping could go around Africa (which Maersk and another line had already decided to do, I've seen some pundit modelling on the costs and consequences, it's pretty miserable from the standards of peacetime, with consequences on the consumer supply chain, but in terms of "oh no the US might lose a hot war with China", going around Africa will just have to work itself out). And yes, they're moving amazing amounts of arms to Ukraine, but not as much as it looks like. There's a lot of already-destined-for-scrap vehicles, and a lot of ammunition that was approaching the end of its shelf life, and so on. What fraction of Abrams went to Ukraine? (under 1%) How many F16s are going to Ukraine? (I believe that all nations collectively have committed around 60 F16s, which if supplied entirely by the US would be about 2% of US fighter aircraft.) Don't get it twisted, the US is not going full-bore in Ukraine. The stockpiles and production capacity of 155mm is a concern for sure, and air defense missiles too. But it's not even close to being a "front", even in terms of the logistics demands (and obviously in terms of combat personnel it is 0% of a front). And because of that conflict, Russia is nearly incapable of doing anything more aggressive than it already is, which frees up military resources relative to the situation 2 years ago. Except 155mm, of course. None of this means that the US does or does not need to increase the size of its fleet to meet goals involving its pacing threat, which is the context of this thread, and I'm agnostic about that higher-level claim. And I'm not saying that everything is peachy, neither with respect to the health of the US fleet in general, or in particular with respect to industrial competitiveness vis a vis China. But the US is not currently in a 1.5-front war, that's just absurd.
qp11 3y ago
Obviously cause the largest chunk of profits from manufacturing doesn't go back into the factory or r&d, but into dividends/exec bonuses/stock buybacks/moved overseas to avoid taxes and other financial engineering. So in GDP you can see clearly Finance sector growing while Manufacturing shrinks. Parasitic relationship. No one seems to be able to comes up with tools to invert that dynamic. I thought Big Tech would be the natural source of such tools but they have been over run by financial engineers too. The other potential counter balancing force is govt getting into manufacturing big time, but Wall St has too much influence there too. They are great experts in getting govt to hand out subsidies and tariffs which they then siphon off.

by roenxi 3y ago

kibwen 3y ago

> The issue is that capable people are being prevented from improving the situation. What situation, specifically, needs to be improved? The US Navy does not, at present, have any need whatsoever to drastically increase the size of its fleet. Every ship that gets built is a ship that needs to be manned and maintained, which siphons money from elsewhere. We can bemoan the inefficiency of the existing shipbuilders, but that's just how the US sells welfare programs to conservative voters. If you think that a hot war with China is in the cards, forget investing in shipbuilding infrastructure and instead put that money towards onshoring the rest of the national critical supply chain, much of which is in far more dire straits (ahem) than the shipyards.

thereisnospork 3y ago
Shipbuilding inefficient and the lack of onshore critical supply chain are two symptoms of the same problem: whether it's chips, shells, or ships: production capacity is critical in any prolonged conflict - which is something we've been agnostically gutting and impeding. It's desirable that we be able to build ships well[0] because being able to build ships well (or not) is a reasonable proxy for being able to build drones, fighter planes, or ballistic missles (whatever the next war calls for). [0]Read: unacceptable for it to be otherwise for a superpower that would like to stay one. Actually cranking out ships is another thing but the capacity needs to be there (and tested/validated accordingly).
roenxi 3y ago
If your argument is that US shipbuilding is supposed to be a welfare project then all is well. I suppose my mistake was thinking that the industry was there to build ships. > The US Navy does not, at present, have any need whatsoever to drastically increase the size of its fleet. How much of US military spending should be classed as welfare? Between Ukraine and Israel the US appears to be in a 1.5 front war and the European front hasn't covered itself in glory. This might be a good time to think about re-purposing the military from welfare projects to defence, if there is a hot war with China it'll be US vs. the world's preeminent industrial superpower. It'd be wise to prepare before it becomes necessary, they learn how to build things faster than the US does. I don't think it is likely, but we've seen this last year how close the US is to a 3-front war. There are uncomfortable odds they'd lose; their ability to sustain overseas operations is in question. We're already looking at a debt crisis with what they pulled off in the last 20 years and that was mainly a fight with guerrillas and goat herders.
- jholman 3y ago
  Characterizing the US's current commitments in Ukraine and Israel as 1.5 fronts is baffling. Neither of those constitutes even a tiny fraction of the American capability to wage war. Yes, there are some commitments in the Eastern Med, but as Ford heads home, the Bataan ARG of literally three ships and zero full-sized aircraft carriers is judged sufficient to hold that down, because remember that their role in Israel is to, uh, do exactly nothing. Now, putting aside Israel-as-such, there is Ike's group in the Red Sea. The Red Sea presence isn't directly about Israel, but about Houthi threats to global shipping. If the US was in a hot war, global shipping could go around Africa (which Maersk and another line had already decided to do, I've seen some pundit modelling on the costs and consequences, it's pretty miserable from the standards of peacetime, with consequences on the consumer supply chain, but in terms of "oh no the US might lose a hot war with China", going around Africa will just have to work itself out). And yes, they're moving amazing amounts of arms to Ukraine, but not as much as it looks like. There's a lot of already-destined-for-scrap vehicles, and a lot of ammunition that was approaching the end of its shelf life, and so on. What fraction of Abrams went to Ukraine? (under 1%) How many F16s are going to Ukraine? (I believe that all nations collectively have committed around 60 F16s, which if supplied entirely by the US would be about 2% of US fighter aircraft.) Don't get it twisted, the US is not going full-bore in Ukraine. The stockpiles and production capacity of 155mm is a concern for sure, and air defense missiles too. But it's not even close to being a "front", even in terms of the logistics demands (and obviously in terms of combat personnel it is 0% of a front). And because of that conflict, Russia is nearly incapable of doing anything more aggressive than it already is, which frees up military resources relative to the situation 2 years ago. Except 155mm, of course. None of this means that the US does or does not need to increase the size of its fleet to meet goals involving its pacing threat, which is the context of this thread, and I'm agnostic about that higher-level claim. And I'm not saying that everything is peachy, neither with respect to the health of the US fleet in general, or in particular with respect to industrial competitiveness vis a vis China. But the US is not currently in a 1.5-front war, that's just absurd.

qp11 3y ago

Obviously cause the largest chunk of profits from manufacturing doesn't go back into the factory or r&d, but into dividends/exec bonuses/stock buybacks/moved overseas to avoid taxes and other financial engineering. So in GDP you can see clearly Finance sector growing while Manufacturing shrinks. Parasitic relationship. No one seems to be able to comes up with tools to invert that dynamic. I thought Big Tech would be the natural source of such tools but they have been over run by financial engineers too. The other potential counter balancing force is govt getting into manufacturing big time, but Wall St has too much influence there too. They are great experts in getting govt to hand out subsidies and tariffs which they then siphon off.