Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

America Is Preparing Kids For The Future As Servants
EconomyInCrisis.org ^ | 12/21/06 | Thomas Heffner

Posted on 04/18/2007 7:59:30 AM PDT by A. Pole

In the 1950's 30% of US employees were in manufacturing - almost 1 in 3 jobs. This country was a relative manufacturing super power, we were the world's richest and most productive country. In 1994 approximately 1 in 8 jobs were in manufacturing. In 2014 if the US government (Bureau of Labor Statistics) projections are accurate that figure will have slipped to 1 in 12 jobs.

The government is telling us in black and white that the policies they are enacting will decrease both absolute and relative manufacturing employment to levels below that of the 1950's - over 2 million below.

In less than 20 years since America put in place some of its most self-devastating policy decisions (NAFTA, WTO, CAFTA, etc.), this country will have almost completely converted from a self-sufficient sovereign state, capable of manufacturing what it needs to sustain and protect itself, to a country of servants – serfs, working at the behest of foreign employers or engaged in the sales, marketing, and distribution of foreign-made goods – working at their discretion, for wages they determine, and forced to pay their prices for needed goods. This is the definition of a servant.

A country that ends up producing little of value will have little to consume at home and little to trade abroad, and will have a low standard of living. The way this country was built was by developing world-leading industries and dominating the markets for products that we invented. Now we have conceded that we are instead going to exist by selling our assets and eliminate most of our ability to produce for ourselves. This would make any country extremely vulnerable.

From 1994-2004, manufacturing was the second fastest job-losing sector in our economy (second only to agricultural employment). From 2004-2014, the government predicts that most of the employment growth will come from retail, health care, leisure and hospitality, government jobs, and “professional and business services.”

This country needs salespeople, waiters, attorneys, doctors, and managers. But how could we have ever built a superpower country on those professions alone?

Many say that we are shipping jobs overseas because they are too low-paying or too rudimentary. Anyone who has worked in factory operating a million-dollar piece of equipment can tell you the satisfying difference from being forced to work in a restaurant as a waiter because of lack of alternatives. Why would we send factory jobs overseas to replace them with jobs in retail and hospitality? Factories sustain communities. Retail and hospitality enriches absentee corporations and shareholders. Offshore outsourcing strips us of technology, taxes, profits, and career opportunities. Why would we choose that path as manufacturing jobs pay much more on average than service jobs?

Some other countries, like Japan, pay wages as high as or higher than America because their manufacturing is capital and knowledge intensive and requires fewer workers per unit of output. In addition, other countries like China that pay wages as low as 1/10 of ours, also does not have the same cost of living as the US. Their goods cost a fraction of what they cost here in America; therefore it is not possible to compare the wages on an absolute basis.

Many people also say education is the key. They say that not enough Americans are being trained for engineering, science, or production occupations. There is no point in educating people when there are no jobs – when these industries are being systematically and predatorily destroyed by foreign subsidized competition producing and operating both externally and here in this country through insourcing.

We are living in a fool’s paradise, being propped up by foreign loans to our government and foreign subsidized consumption of our incredulous trade deficits which is approaching $800 billion ($1.6 million per minute) this year alone..

The net takeaway of the Bureau of Labor Statistics report is that if you expect to earn a decent living by producing a product – any product – in this next 10 years, you will have little opportunity to do that in this country.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: cheaplabor; china; deficit; immigration; japan; jobs; manufacturing; technology; trade
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-107 next last

1 posted on 04/18/2007 7:59:32 AM PDT by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Willie Green; Wolfie; ex-snook; Jhoffa_; FITZ; arete; FreedomPoster; Red Jones; Pyro7480; ...
"[...]This country needs salespeople, waiters, attorneys, doctors, and managers. But how could we have ever built a superpower country on those professions alone? [...]"
2 posted on 04/18/2007 8:01:25 AM PDT by A. Pole (FReeper: "So trade did not hurt the Indians who sold Manhattan for $24 dollars worth of trinkets?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

100 years ago, agriculture was the dominant industry and majority of the employment. Now it is probably less than 2%.

Times change - no fear!


3 posted on 04/18/2007 8:05:08 AM PDT by The_Republican (So Dark The Con of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican
100 years ago, agriculture was the dominant industry and majority of the employment. Now it is probably less than 2%.

Yet, America is self sufficient in food. This self-sufficiency is based on technology (not on cheap labor) and government support.

4 posted on 04/18/2007 8:07:55 AM PDT by A. Pole (FReeper: "So trade did not hurt the Indians who sold Manhattan for $24 dollars worth of trinkets?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican
Times change yes they do but natural laws do not, wealth requires production of something of value. Haircuts, house cleaning and yard work are not the stuff of a great wealth producing nation.
5 posted on 04/18/2007 8:09:07 AM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

Jobs you mentioned are hardly done my “Americans” even if they are in America.


6 posted on 04/18/2007 8:12:56 AM PDT by The_Republican (So Dark The Con of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Manufacturing, particularly the labor intensive type, is what you do when your only alternative is to pick beets or provide pleasure to visiting sailors.

As I've stated several times before, manufacturing employment is in decline WORLDWIDE due to advances in technology, making semi and unskilled workers unnecessary. Even where such manufacturing exists, the fact that it is increasingly done by young women (who leave the factory floor in places like Guangzhou after 5-10 years), while the men pursue more lucrative fields should tell you something about where labor-intensive manufacturing fits on the global totem pole.

7 posted on 04/18/2007 8:13:08 AM PDT by Clemenza (NO to Rudy in 2008! New York's Values are NOT America's Values! RUN FRED RUN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
Times change yes they do but natural laws do not, wealth requires production of something of value. Haircuts, house cleaning and yard work are not the stuff of a great wealth producing nation.
What are you talking about? We produce plenty of wealth! Like the little pieces of paper that the Chinese give us money for so we can buy their stuff ;)
8 posted on 04/18/2007 8:14:39 AM PDT by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Yep, I've been singing this tune for years. Our economy is being driven by retail, I don’t know how its holding together, but the stores are full and the factories are few and far apart.
9 posted on 04/18/2007 8:15:43 AM PDT by Realism (Some believe that the facts-of-life are open to debate.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

Where I live they are done by Americans, however that was not my point. My point was that WEALTH REQUIRES PRODUCTION. We can not expect to be wealthy if we move production off shore. We being the entire collection of Americans.


10 posted on 04/18/2007 8:16:46 AM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
In the 1950's 30% of US employees were in manufacturing

The 1950's was just after wwII. In WWII, the world had zero manufacturing outside North America. Since then, the rest of the world has rebuilt their manufacturing.

11 posted on 04/18/2007 8:17:02 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

LOL, yes keep the presses rolling by all means. BTW I noticed that the pound is selling at over 2 bucks today. Hmmm, wonder if that has anything at all to do with off shoring production of wealth?


12 posted on 04/18/2007 8:18:57 AM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

I didn’t know Willie Green was still around. I hope to hear from him. It is my belief that manufacturing leaving the USA is not necessarily a problem. Let the Chinese and Mexicans manufacture our textiles or the usual crap Wal-Mart sells. Recognize that our country builds commercial aircraft (as well as military aircraft), automobiles, heavy equipment and other more sophisticated items. Also, our country still has three shipyards building military ships for our Navy. There needs to be an industrial base for this type of product. The Japanese, Koreans and Germans have factories all over the USA building cars. Americans can build good cars, it is just that the big three with the UAW continue to edge toward self destruction. Protectionism is not the answer, with the except of protecting our key industrial base.


13 posted on 04/18/2007 8:19:05 AM PDT by GeorgefromGeorgia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Realism
Yep, I've been singing this tune for years. Our economy is being driven by retail, I don’t know how its holding together, but the stores are full and the factories are few and far apart.
To be serious for a moment. Somebody with more economics background may be able to correct me, but to be able to buy things don't you need to provide goods and services to get the wealth to actually buy it? We still lead the world in services, like software, banking etc... which provide us with a good enough economy *for now*. But all of those areas have low barriers of entry to an educated population. Other than protectionism what's to stop India from providing say, the next big operating system and eating our lunch?
14 posted on 04/18/2007 8:19:21 AM PDT by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

What is this talking! The Ameristan ruble is making good by being low for selling!


15 posted on 04/18/2007 8:22:42 AM PDT by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jpsb

My mother’s wages at a salon paid for my college education and my brother’s college education. We went to the University of Akron, commuted, and were there at the same time for two years. No loans were taken out by my brother or me, and my parents did not take them out either. Before we were in college she was a stay at home mom. She cleaned the house and mowed the lawn.


16 posted on 04/18/2007 8:24:33 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jpsb
Times change yes they do but natural laws do not, wealth requires production of something of value. Haircuts, house cleaning and yard work are not the stuff of a great wealth producing nation.

Yep! Production and exporting and positive trade balance ARE wealth producers. Using brains to invent better products, raw material and productive labor to make, better things and then sell them to rest of the world. Put it all into the product, sell it and make profit. Government regulations, bureaucracy and taxing and stupid envirolawlessness only hamper American free spirit and kick companies to look outside for manufacturing. We are losing wealth creating production.
This can not be compared to production gains in agriculture that is still HERE.
Which brings the point, that we would be better off bringing cheap, legal laborers here into our factories, keep the production here and groom them to become consuming and paying citizens here, rather than being illegales and send our dollars outta home.
We can only go so long cutting each other's hair.

17 posted on 04/18/2007 8:24:43 AM PDT by Leo Carpathian (ffffFReeeePeee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

bump


18 posted on 04/18/2007 8:27:18 AM PDT by lesser_satan (FRED THOMPSON '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Thank you for posting that. Good read and very much true.


19 posted on 04/18/2007 8:29:48 AM PDT by TheRiverNile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Please stop the fear-mongering. That should be the province of the left. This country is in better economic shape today than it has been at any time in history, precisely because we have been willing to adapt and refused to close our system to outsiders.

If doctors, nurses, systems analysts, engineers and the like are mere servants, then I would say there is great honor in service.

In the United States of America, there are plenty of avenues open for someone who wants to break out of poverty, or the working class. You have to get past the hucksters and charlatans to find the path but it is there if you wish to find it. A practically-free education is available. Open access to worldwide markets is available in just about every industry you could name.

The world economy is like electricity flowing all around you, and all you have to do is make a decision to plug into it to participate. Placing more legal restrictions on the economy would only harm those who seek upward mobility, not help them.

Maybe you'll find a more receptive audience at DU. Over here we like ingenuity and hard work, and think it should be rewarded.

20 posted on 04/18/2007 8:29:49 AM PDT by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

“100 years ago, agriculture was the dominant industry and majority of the employment. Now it is probably less than 2%.

Times change - no fear!”

Times do change but what we are talking about, in effect, is not so much a change from agrarian to industrial to information as much as it is a consolidation of power. We were mainly a country of relatively small farms progressing to small manufacturers and we had good competition because the industries were decentralized. We have now bowed to the multinationals who, in their behemoth state, are writing laws that erect even further barriers to entry through regulation and implicit (or possibly explicit) collusion. They are not serving our country...rather they are owning it. That is why policies no longer benefit the vast majority of the citizens and instead benefit those multinationals. This is done in the name of the “free market” but it actually takes away from the free market by undermining the basic assumptions of that free market.

Socialism, in a nutshell, is when the government owns the private sector. Conversely, fascism is when corporations own the government.

What does it matter whether the government owns the companies or the companies own the government? The end result is the same: A TOTALITARIAN REGIME.

History tells us that totalitarian regimes, no matter the orientation, will eventually morph into regimes that do hideous and unseemly things. Some outright rulers will be benevolent but it is usually only a short time before a malignant power arises. Having elections doesn’t protect a nation from this...see Germany.


21 posted on 04/18/2007 8:32:17 AM PDT by TheRiverNile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: massadvj

No to denigrate your point at all and I don’t deny what you say at all. But don’t you need a trade surplus for this to be effective? Right now our economy is operating at a net loss(correct me if I’m wrong) which is sustained by an influx of foreign capital. What would happen if, say, capital found a better place to go? Could the American economy sustain itself?


22 posted on 04/18/2007 8:34:44 AM PDT by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Nah, don’t worry. We’ll just export all of our jobs. Then we can sit around and max out our credit cards buying cool cheap stuff! Once they’re maxed, we’ll print more money! If things aren’t cheap enough, we’ll move manufacturing to even poorer countries. Borrow money from China, they’re our buddies!


23 posted on 04/18/2007 8:35:00 AM PDT by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheRiverNile

Big Bump to all you said and said well I might add.


24 posted on 04/18/2007 8:36:51 AM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TheRiverNile

What you say has some truth, but if what you say really comes to pass, what’s to stop Americans from becoming the new mexicans? If American corporate power became too agressive wouldn’t most educated Americans just vote with their feet and go and work in China if opportunities were better there?


25 posted on 04/18/2007 8:37:26 AM PDT by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: massadvj

How much I wish/hope that you are right.


26 posted on 04/18/2007 8:39:29 AM PDT by A. Pole (FReeper: "So trade did not hurt the Indians who sold Manhattan for $24 dollars worth of trinkets?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: massadvj
If doctors, nurses, systems analysts, engineers and the like are mere servants, then I would say there is great honor in service.

These professions arn't what they used to be. Unless your some kind of specialist, they are middle class income jobs.

27 posted on 04/18/2007 8:44:57 AM PDT by Realism (Some believe that the facts-of-life are open to debate.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ketsu
If American corporate power became too agressive wouldn’t most educated Americans just vote with their feet and go and work in China if opportunities were better there?

Yeaaaarghhhhh!!! Welcome Komrade Amerikan to our komunist paradise! Please report to komune No99, everything is taken care off, you just work and take according to your needs!

28 posted on 04/18/2007 8:48:59 AM PDT by Leo Carpathian (ffffFReeeePeee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ketsu
Right now our economy is operating at a net loss(correct me if I’m wrong) which is sustained by an influx of foreign capital.

Capital is a product no less valid than a tangible product. Is the money you spend to go to a movie less important than the money you spend on an iPod? The fact that the iPod is tangible makes no difference as far as economic flows are concerned.

We attract capital because we are the most efficient, open and honest system in the world. So long as we remain so, we have nothing to worry about. Closing our system, imposing more regulations and barriers, would dry things up in a hurry, and be quite counterproductive to what protectionists claim as their goals.

29 posted on 04/18/2007 8:49:00 AM PDT by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Leo Carpathian

They are going to be reporting to the soup kitchen after their 14 hour shift at WallMart is done.

These free trade idiots are 65% done destroying America.


30 posted on 04/18/2007 8:50:32 AM PDT by Jonathan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: massadvj
Capital is a product no less valid than a tangible product.

What is your definition of capital, maye I ask?

31 posted on 04/18/2007 8:51:21 AM PDT by A. Pole (FReeper: "So trade did not hurt the Indians who sold Manhattan for $24 dollars worth of trinkets?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: massadvj
Capital is a product no less valid than a tangible product. Is the money you spend to go to a movie less important than the money you spend on an iPod? The fact that the iPod is tangible makes no difference as far as economic flows are concerned.
That's a good point. But doesn't that process rely on continuous appreciation of the assets that are the targets of investment? What happens when you hit an inevitable down cycle and your assets are no longer good targets for investment? I'm specifically thinking of disasters in countries like Argentina when investment dried up.

I'm not trying to be a contrarian, just trying to get my head around this.
32 posted on 04/18/2007 8:59:09 AM PDT by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: massadvj
We attract capital because we are the most efficient, open and honest system in the world. So long as we remain so, we have nothing to worry about.

That's they key, but constant attack on those things that made America great (freedom, less gumbmint bureaucracy, resources, entrepreneurs) is eroding that status and crippling the industry with confusing confiscatory tax code, stupid regulations, environazis, unions, rent controls, etc.

Closing our system, imposing more regulations and barriers, would dry things up in a hurry, and be quite counterproductive to what protectionists claim as their goals.

It's not the question of closing our system, but removing crippling regulations, unions, enviro BS that is driving wealth producting manufacturing offshore. I'd rather design new products and make them, than cut the lawn or sKerry's hair.

33 posted on 04/18/2007 9:05:03 AM PDT by Leo Carpathian (ffffFReeeePeee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: massadvj
We attract capital because we are the most efficient, open and honest system in the world. So long as we remain so, we have nothing to worry about.

That's they key, but constant attack on those things that made America great (freedom, less gumbmint bureaucracy, resources, entrepreneurs) is eroding that status and crippling the industry with confusing confiscatory tax code, stupid regulations, environazis, unions, rent controls, etc.

Closing our system, imposing more regulations and barriers, would dry things up in a hurry, and be quite counterproductive to what protectionists claim as their goals.

It's not the question of closing our system, but removing crippling regulations, unions, enviro BS that is driving wealth producting manufacturing offshore. I'd rather design new products and make them, than cut the lawn or sKerry's hair.

34 posted on 04/18/2007 9:05:09 AM PDT by Leo Carpathian (ffffFReeeePeee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ketsu
That's a good point. But doesn't that process rely on continuous appreciation of the assets that are the targets of investment? What happens when you hit an inevitable down cycle and your assets are no longer good targets for investment? I'm specifically thinking of disasters in countries like Argentina when investment dried up.

The problem with Latin American and other places was not the trade balance but government spending and government loan guarantees. The market would quickly have sorted things out had politicians not been involved. The capital would have been used for investment rather than socialism. It's the difference between teaching someone to fish versus giving them a fish.

The problem in the US is out of control government, not out of control business. Business operates within constraints imposed by markets, which will be imperfect, but correct themselves quickly. Government operates outside those constraints. So asking government to constrain markets is like asking the wolf to guard the hen house.

I am a business professor with a PhD in marketing. To fully understand what I am talking about requires quite an education. I have had eight years, and still do not understand it fully. But certain things are well-known, even to liberals. One of them is that free markets are way more efficient than controlled ones.

The two industries with the most out-of-control pricing are health care and education. It is no coincidence that these are the two industries with the most government regulation. Imposing more restrictions on imports and exports would yield results comparable to those we face in education and health care: it would dramatically increase the price of everything and produce a semi-permanent class of people who produce nothing but useless paperwork.

35 posted on 04/18/2007 9:13:37 AM PDT by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Leo Carpathian
It's not the question of closing our system, but removing crippling regulations, unions, enviro BS that is driving wealth producting manufacturing offshore.

This part I agree with. It's attempting to impose trade barriers in order to protect the regulation that I have a problem with.

36 posted on 04/18/2007 9:15:55 AM PDT by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Accounting, engineering, sofware design, corporate law, advertising, trucking, air freight, railroads, mining, logging, secretarial work, running the office cafeteria, management, administration (and more) are all components of the manufacturing process and are wealth-producing work in that they contribute to the value of the finished product.

Many of the above are called "services" and are sneered at by some. But they are all manufacturing jobs if they support a manufacturing company.

That some of the manufactured goods are assembled somewhere else won't impoverish us.

37 posted on 04/18/2007 9:17:53 AM PDT by BfloGuy (It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

“What you say has some truth, but if what you say really comes to pass, what’s to stop Americans from becoming the new mexicans? If American corporate power became too agressive wouldn’t most educated Americans just vote with their feet and go and work in China if opportunities were better there?”

You assume that we will be able to leave and that may be a terrible assumption to make. Do you not think the Jews wanted to leave Germany? What’s more, as technology increases, it will actually become more difficult to leave.

Lastly, with globalism in full flight, who is to say that the multinationals won’t have a grasp on the entire planet?

History teaches us that we might not be able to leave. The Bible prophesizes of another totalitarian regime that is the most ruthless of all. I doubt that we’ll care whether that regime is socialist or facist. Hopefully, that will be thousands of years from now.


38 posted on 04/18/2007 9:19:14 AM PDT by TheRiverNile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

ping for later


39 posted on 04/18/2007 9:20:03 AM PDT by the anti-liberal (OUR schools are damaging OUR children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
What is your definition of capital, may I ask?

Capital is anything that can be traded. Labor, money, loans, stocks, bonds, goods. If it can be traded in a mutually beneficial exchange, it qualifies.

Capital goods are goods used in the manufacture of other goods. But capital refers to all assets, whether tangible or intangible, that have value.

40 posted on 04/18/2007 9:21:57 AM PDT by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Realism

Goodwill Industries and other “sued clothing stores” are thriving due to the massive amounts of used stuff that people no longer need or want.


41 posted on 04/18/2007 9:23:25 AM PDT by x_plus_one (As long as we pretend to not be fighting Iran in Iraq, we can't pretend to win the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: massadvj
The problem with Latin American and other places was not the trade balance but government spending and government loan guarantees. The market would quickly have sorted things out had politicians not been involved. The capital would have been used for investment rather than socialism. It's the difference between teaching someone to fish versus giving them a fish.

The problem in the US is out of control government, not out of control business. Business operates within constraints imposed by markets, which will be imperfect, but correct themselves quickly. Government operates outside those constraints. So asking government to constrain markets is like asking the wolf to guard the hen house.

I am a business professor with a PhD in marketing. To fully understand what I am talking about requires quite an education. I have had eight years, and still do not understand it fully. But certain things are well-known, even to liberals. One of them is that free markets are way more efficient than controlled ones.

The two industries with the most out-of-control pricing are health care and education. It is no coincidence that these are the two industries with the most government regulation. Imposing more restrictions on imports and exports would yield results comparable to those we face in education and health care: it would dramatically increase the price of everything and produce a semi-permanent class of people who produce nothing but useless paperwork.
Thank you for your detailed and well reasoned response.

Okay. I see where you're coming from. But I think I wasn't clear. I see what you're saying wrt to government regulation and Argentina. Thanks for clearing up the difference between the two examples.

However what I still don't understand is how an American economy dependent on foreign investment can deal with the inevitable corrections in the world economy. I understand that India and China are quite unstable economies currently so in the near future there's no reliable alternative to investment in America. But in the future how will the American economy sustain itself?

As you and many others have mentioned America has moved to a services and high technology oriented economy. I only have a rudimentary understanding of economics, but from what I understand other countries are quickly catching up to America in many high tech and services industries. From my limited understanding I know that the strongest economies need to be involved in fields with high barriers to entry to maintain their superiority. I see these barriers leveling between the world economies.

How do you see America maintaining its economic superiority? And in what fields?
42 posted on 04/18/2007 9:27:14 AM PDT by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TheRiverNile
You assume that we will be able to leave and that may be a terrible assumption to make. Do you not think the Jews wanted to leave Germany? What’s more, as technology increases, it will actually become more difficult to leave.

Lastly, with globalism in full flight, who is to say that the multinationals won’t have a grasp on the entire planet?

History teaches us that we might not be able to leave. The Bible prophesizes of another totalitarian regime that is the most ruthless of all. I doubt that we’ll care whether that regime is socialist or facist. Hopefully, that will be thousands of years from now.
Plenty of good points there.

My hypothetical was mostly a way of wondering if emigration would provide a reliable counterpoint to totalitarism and your points especially wrt to globalism and technology do a lot to rebut that supposition.
43 posted on 04/18/2007 9:31:18 AM PDT by ketsu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
The article (and the posts that follow) make me wonder...

Will the Chinese sell us weapons to fight back with after they go to war with us?

Capitol doesn't win wars. Manufacturing wins wars.

44 posted on 04/18/2007 9:33:59 AM PDT by jboot (If I can't get a Josiah, I'll settle for a Jehu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: x_plus_one
Goodwill Industries and other “sued clothing stores” are thriving due to the massive amounts of used stuff that people no longer need or want.

They are thriving because other people need or want it.

45 posted on 04/18/2007 9:34:40 AM PDT by MARTIAL MONK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: massadvj
I am a business professor with a PhD in marketing. To fully understand what I am talking about requires quite an education. I have had eight years, and still do not understand it fully. But certain things are well-known, even to liberals. One of them is that free markets are way more efficient than controlled ones.

One year running your own business (or Pretzel Cart by Holland Tunnel) would probably eclipse them eight :-)
But Liberals (commies really) may well know it, but they do not strive for it. Their aim is full control as demonstrated by commie "paradise" shiny example. I grew up in the commie system, where all (not much) was taken care of. Now I am filthy capitalist pig, started from zero (OK, suitcase of clothes) and standing on my own feet, watching in horror where is America marching towards. Seems very similar: brainwashing, using masses to gain control, eventually to screw them all with totalitarian system and power. It worries me. Been there, hate to be there or my children again.
The KEY is Freedom, Competition and government nose out of our businesses.

46 posted on 04/18/2007 9:46:11 AM PDT by Leo Carpathian (ffffFReeeePeee!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Leo Carpathian
removing crippling regulations, unions, enviro BS that is driving wealth producting manufacturing offshore.

Most of these things have been around since the industrial revolution and now all of a sudden they are the cause of off-shoring? I believe you should pay more attention to more recent events such as free trade agreements, Most Favored Nation status, WTO, etc.

47 posted on 04/18/2007 10:00:16 AM PDT by Realism (Some believe that the facts-of-life are open to debate.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ketsu
Other than protectionism what's to stop India from providing say, the next big operating system and eating our lunch?

What stopped India from inventing the airplane? The submarine? The air conditioner? The transistor? I don't know. What prevents GM from being Toyota? I don't know. There are a lot of moving parts involved. And a secret sauce that's not easily definable. I wouldn't be too sure that India (or China) can just step into our shoes. Note that Vinod Khosla helped co-found Sun. Why couldn't he have done that in India? Indra Nooyi is Pepsi's CEO. Why isn't she the founder of globe-spanning soft drink company in India? Again - it's not as simple as it sounds.

48 posted on 04/18/2007 10:01:17 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ketsu
As you and many others have mentioned America has moved to a services and high technology oriented economy. I only have a rudimentary understanding of economics, but from what I understand other countries are quickly catching up to America in many high tech and services industries. From my limited understanding I know that the strongest economies need to be involved in fields with high barriers to entry to maintain their superiority. I see these barriers leveling between the world economies. How do you see America maintaining its economic superiority? And in what fields?

It's a combination of patents and trade secrets and some undefinable secret sauce. Why do Acer and Lenovo persistently have lower margins than Dell? Why does Toyota lead the world in profitability? Why do all three German automakers thrive despite strong competition? How is it that Colgate Palmolive and P&G are beating the pants off Chinese, Japanese and European consumer goods makers in China? It's that undefinable element.

I think American companies will do well the way they always have - by inventing new products and services and improving existing one in the way Americans have always done. Some might say this is taking things a little too much on faith. I don't think so - look at how many of the most profitable companies in America are only a few decades old, and compare that to a similar roster of foreign companies that make the list. Just because they can compete on the low end doesn't mean they can compete on the high end.

49 posted on 04/18/2007 10:14:21 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ketsu
Why does Toyota lead the world in profitability?

That should have read: Why does Toyota lead the world's automakers in profitability?

50 posted on 04/18/2007 10:15:41 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-107 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson