"Economic access to our own productive resources"? This phrase itself is perfect bureaucratese.
America's most productive resources are American minds and American guts.
There is too much federal regulation, of course. But there is no law against having a good idea and raising capital to make it a reality.
And Dubya's trade and outsourcing "strategery" undermines our domestic efforts to compete.
If America thinks that the key to being economically competitive is having as many people working in manufacturing in the US as possible then America can never compete. Even if some ridiculous iron law were passed that forbade American corporations from ever relocating another job, China would still bury us with sheer numbers on the manufacturing front.
The President, like most reflective Americans, realizes that the sheer number of warm, unionized bodies on an assembly line does not equal added value.
It's 2004, not 1950.
Our "knowledge" based industries are being outsourced to India,
and our guts are being spilled to import OPECker oil.
And George W. Bush is no conservative visionary like Ronald Reagan.
Organized Labor representation of our blue collar industries has been in steady decline for decades, and today accounts for only about 16% of the workforce. Ronald Reagan won landslide victories with his America First! policies on trade issues. Yet the Bush dynasties have rejected the Gipper's leadership and continue to perpetuate the archaic stereotype of manufacturing union membership while feeding the Big Government growth of organized labor, which has risen to over 40% of the government workforce, stifling our domestic private sector.
How did China acquire all that technology and knowledge to do those wonderful things?
RE: "It's 2004, not 1950."
Cute. But what does it mean? The Chi-com masters would never, never murder tens of millions of their own citizens again? As Dan Rather said just hours before Tiananmen Square, "China is a kinder, gentler nation." Is that what that means?
How did China get all that modern technology?
Perhaps.
A quick review of "First World" economies (CIA Factbook, 2002 numbers/2003 publication) shows that the AVERAGE 'First World' country has 28% of its GDP in 'industrial output.'
The US was at 18% in that edition of the 'Factbook,' a number not quite consonant with BEA's number. Regardless, one wonders if all those other 'first world' countries are wrong--assuming YOUR theory is correct...
The payrolls and profitability of manufacturing support and/or require construction, infrastructure, healthcare, and a good percentage of IT expenditures. Further, basic manufacturing (metals and metal-forming) are absolutely sine-qua-non for military needs.
Benignly ignoring the seed-capital of manufacturing skills, or dis-incenting talented and skilled people from joining the field as toolmakers, machinists, etc., will have results; and they may not be pretty.
Carpenters and medical technicians do NOT build tanks or M16's; they do NOT build airplanes of any sort; and they do NOT build automobiles, nor hydraulic systems, nor electrical machinery.