even though, as a native Nu Yawkah, I consistently bemoan the liberal tendencies of my home state. . . . but, NYS could not handle the spectacle of Brazilian carnival. If so, I would move back
misleading indicator, at best.
Have always thought that raw industrial production is a poor indicator, which tends to mask deep seated problems. For example, the PRC leads in steel production, but they are highly dependent on outside sources for a substantial portion of both coking coal, and iron ore. Lose even partial access to those outside resources, and all you have is a large pile of sunk costs into non-productive assets. Truth of the matter is that China (PRC) is only a part of the overall manufacturing and fabrication process, and for the really finished goods requiring high quality, precision steel, there's a lot of other players outside of China who all have to be involved, otherwise the entire process goes into free-fall. That's why there is still a fair amount of steel producing capacity here in the US.
Which brings up a critical point. Manufacturing locations like China, Vietnam, India, and other locations have been seriously damaged by the vast increase in transportation costs over the last 6 to 9 months. The entire "offshoring" business has totally been changed because of the increases in transportation costs (and we are not talking small increases), and there's large international businesses out there who are currently sweating blood over the possibility that they are going to take some massive writedowns on investments made over the last several years in "offshoring" manufacturing capacity.
Check and see how many new announcements of major investments and/or expansions in production capacity are being made within the last 5-6 months in places like China. Hint: Not Many. There's a reason - the uncertainty in the marketplace is forcing a comprehensive review of many projects, and project validity with gas prices at $2.50 a Gal. is one thing, project validity is much more uncertain (and unlikely) at $4.00 a Gal. And remember, the government of the PRC was subsidizing fuel prices, and those subsidies have been cut by at least 40% to 45%, with more increases to come.
If you talk to any number of business analysts who are really have the insides into China's manufacturing potential, they are much less confident than what oftentimes gets presented in the MSM, specifically in that many very difficult issues China has to face just get ignored or glossed over.
In short, I'm a little bit worried about US economic power, but for different reasons. We need to build a substantial energy production base (and I'm not necessarily concerned just about oil) for both natural gas and electricity, but also high speed internet capacity (REAL high capacity broadband, not this wannabe nonsense being foisted off onto the general public these days). And addressing those issues, at least here in the US, are directly in the political realm.
even though, as a native Nu Yawkah, I consistently bemoan the liberal tendencies of my home state. . . . but, NYS could not handle the spectacle of Brazilian carnival. If so, I would move back
Last edited by Icepack6; 07-30-2008 at 02:58 AM.
Adam,
The United States is still #1 in manufacturing, and our absolute level of manufacturing is at record levels. As far as steel goes, a study completed immediately following 9/11 found that the US had more than an adequate access to steel for defense purposes. Part of this is due to the fact that we have moved beyond regular steel for a fair amount of our defense related technology. Besides, if regular steel were such a concern, creating a national stockpile along the lines of the SPR would be a cheaper option.
Two points...
1. If you owe the bank $100, then that is your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, then that is the bank's problem. We owe trillions of dollars to the world. If something happens that makes us unable to make timely payments on that debt, then it will become the world's problem.
2. Too big to fail.
If the US ever suffered a significant depression or other economic calamity then the world would need to think of something quick, because our economy is "too big to fail." If we go down, then Japan and China are going to be holding some worthless paper, oil producers are going to see demand plummet, every country with a current account surplus is going to be living off of its reserves, Africa and the UN get no more money, South America gets the double whammy of no more aid and less demand for their illicit drugs, and Europe can try to piece it all together while supporting their welfare states.
If America is in decline, then the world is in decline.
Statistics...
You're right for official exchange rates (but everybody knows that the Renminbi is too cheap). But you're wrong at purchasing power parity exchange rates.
USA:
GDP = USD 13.84 trillion
industry: 20.5% share of GDP
2.837 trillion industrial value added, USD
PR China:
GDPppp = USD 6.991 trillion
GDP = USD 3.251 trillion
industry: 48.6% share of GDP
3.398 trillion industrial value added, USDppp
1.580 trillion industrial value added, USD
As I said before, money is just an illusion. The offiial exchange rates are a wrong illusion.
PPP exchange rates are a less incorrect illusion.
(source: CIA World Factbook, everything 2007 estimates)
You overestimate the relevance of the USA.
It's correct that the somewhat close economic ties can export U.S. economic troubles to most of the world. But that's only a short-term effect. Few per cent of the German GDP are related to trade with the U.S., for example - and the trade is a drain on its resources, not a push to its economy.
All countries that have a positive trade balance with the U.S. are actually feeding it - they could consume their own goods or export to other nations instead. The economic should would just cause short-term adaption costs.
Nobody really depends on working for Americans for promises to pay sometime in return.
Africa and the UN actually get a lot of money from other countries than the US.
European trade with the USA is actually not so overwhelmingly large as many people suppose. Its exports are diverse, so it would be possible to consume much of it in Europe or elsewhere.
And the reference to welfare state - well, that reminds me of a stereotypic misunderstanding by Americans. We pay to steer the society a bit and to keep the poor less poor. That's actually not more expensive than to have a higher crime rate and 0.75% of the countries' population in jail.
Last edited by Fuchs; 07-30-2008 at 12:08 PM.
Always reliably countered by your understating it...Not more expensive but less likely to increase our already bad but not quite as bad as yours culture of dependency on the government.And the reference to welfare state - well, that reminds me of a stereotypic misunderstanding by Americans. We pay to steer the society a bit and to keep the poor less poor. That's actually not more expensive than to have a higher crime rate and 0.75% of the countries' population in jail.
You know, Schmedlap, Fuchs is right; you are overestimating the importance and relevance of the US economy.
Two points that haven't been mentioned but should be are:
- Rhetoric aside, we (North America) don't have a "service economy" we have an "information economy" that drives service industries. The two are quite different. Furthermore, many of the areas, such as call centres, data entry, etc., that made up the service industries from the 1960's are now outsourced to India and China.
- Everyone seems to be confused by this idea of national economic power and has forgotten that large amounts of industrial capacity are not held by nation states but, rather, are held by non-state actors such as GM, Ford, etc. Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) are as "stateless" as groups such as al Quaida and, if their interests are not being met in one nation, then they will move to another.
Final point on "indicators"...
Indicators are signs pointing towards something, but there are some pretty basic flaws in our assumptions about what they point towards. For example, what does shipbuilding capacity/production point towards? Ken touches on this in his coment about shipbuilding earlier.
And while we are talking about indicators, let me bring out my favorite example.... Did you know that buggy whip production used to be used as he indicator for personal transportation capacity? Well, since it's the indicator (said with a hushed and reverant tone), what does that tell us about the state of US and Canadian personal transport capacity????? We're DOOMED !!!!!!
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
And notice that I did not imply any direct harm to Europe.
International Trade Theory 101: The US is a large importing country for many goods. If we no longer purchase those goods, then it creates surplus supply in the exporting country, prices plummet, profits plummet, and the incentive to continue producing plummets. So, no, those countries would not consume their own goods. They would respond by dramatically scaling back production in the short term and closing down businesses over the long term.
And if the US economy took a dump, then other countries would suffer economic downturns and have less disposable income as well.
See above regarding disposable income.
Impossible.
Last edited by Schmedlap; 07-30-2008 at 03:20 PM. Reason: addition
This is a complex issue (central banks use models with 2,000+ variables to simulate this), and it's off-topic so I don't want to elaborate much.
You simply didn't think around enough edges. A goods trade balance deficit equals a capital transfer deficit and lower prices broaden the base of customers. Finally, production can be changed to different goods to meet demand elsewhere.
Guess what? The American trade balance deficit isn't being paid for by Americans. If the Americans suddenly stopped buying, they would also stop lending. The money would stay outside, the goods would stay outside - and people would simply buy more stuff with their own money after a short (2 years at most) phase of adaption.
----------------------------------
Some statistics that show the moderate relevance of the USA for Europe:
Germany (a country with extreme trade emphasis) has only 7.5% of its export trade (about USD 100 billion) and 4.5% of its import trade (about USD 49 billion) with the U.S..
A total embargo of the USA would only cause a dent (about a quarter) in the German trade balance surplus.
(Let's keep the calculations simple like this; this is not a doctor's thesis, after all.)
EU as a whole: 23.3% (USD 310 billion) / 13.8%. (USD 202 billion) - intra-EU trade excluded.
The difference is about USD 108 billion - less than a per cent of EU GNP and even the exports are less than 2 % of the EU GNP.
The perception of extreme interdependence comes solely from the financial markets, which have illusions as their business model. The real trade & hardware interdependence is marginal - most U.S. products have perfect or close substitutes in the EU.
Most of these were 2005/06/07 figures, CIA World Factbook.
The first part of that is correct. The second half is false. Demand is not created by an abudance of supply.
A severe economic downturn in the US in all likelihood translates into a dramatic global economic downturn, as well, impacting the disposable income of the people who live elsewhere.
I presume that by "they would also step lending" that you mean foreign gov'ts would stop lending us money. The issue is not whether they would buy more of our paper, but rather they would be stuck with buckets of paper that we will still owe money on. Even if we never issued another T-bill, we still owe billions in interest every year on paper that we have already sold.
Thanks for the elaboration regarding Europe, but keep in mind that that we already agreed on that in the first place, so you are preaching to the choir.
That the ultimate determination of this statements reality would be found not so much in the numbers but rather in whether all those countries you refer to would be confident enough in its validity to allow the US to economically flop.
Or if instead they would do anything they could to stop it from happening.
Might be a couple of good examples from recent past
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours
Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
Given the level that the majority of the major economies in the world are connected and interconnected, I'd say it would be "bad" if ANY of them took a major nosedive. US, EU, whatever.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
How many countries has the United States bailed out in the last 100 years, and how many countries have bailed the United States out? Go ahead shorten to 50 years so WW2 isn't in the equation. How many countries rely on United States military? Industrial gimme' contracts? And, provide the reciprocal agreements.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
I understand demand well enough to notice that your statement is untrue without a very important assumption:
There must be an existing demand in order for lower prices to stimulate a broadened base of customers. If people do not demand the goods, then lowering the price doesn't do much. China sells us black berets. If we stop buying black berets, then I doubt that the excess supply in China will stimulate a fashion trend of Chinamen sporting French headgear. And as other countries feel the pain of doing less business with the US, they will have less disposable income, so China will not be well-poised to market their wares in other countries as an alternative.
Also, what you wrote works poorly in the short run, which I think you acknowledge, and not at all in the long run, which directly contradicts your assertion of "a short-term phenomenon." Profits will fall because the production capacity that was serving a Chinese and US market now only serve the Chinese market. In the near term, jobs in the export industries will pay less and there will be layoffs. In the long-term, businesses will shut down and look for new ways to invest their capital - many of which will fail. I think that you are excessively confident when you assert that it would be a "short-term phenomenon" that "might last for probably two years, maybe as few as six months." If anything, the short-term would be the endgame.
I think that just about anyone in the macroeconomics field would disagree. For example, the IMF has been sounding the drumbeat for about the past year of a coming global economic slowdown, in direct response to the US economic slowdown. Their forecasts seem to be about right and follow from the belief that the US economy has a significant influence upon the global economy.
I don't talk about exotic Giffen goods or other exceptions from the rule. The standard theory is that lower price = more sales potential. All else would not be modern economic theory.
The black beret example doesn't work well because a black beret factory could easily change its production portfolio - that's why I wrote repeatedly about a time of adaption.
A factory usually being owned by companies that have a strong interest to make profit. They won't simply stare at the USA and close the factory because Americans don't buy their goods anymore. They would seek other markets and adapt their production.
You seem to ignore consequently that the current model of exports in exchange for bare promises is much less reasonable than producing for those who actually add the value.
And the IMF has - like the World Bank - a record of being useless in economic theory. Too much agenda and ideology.
Plus; it's a human trait to be risk-averse. Most are. That's why so many people are conservatives. The want to preserve because they fear changes. That's already enough to explain why some sound the drumbeat.
Btw; I didn't mean or intend to assert that it would be nice if the USA broke down economically. The adaption phase would be unpleasant. But the present system is unsustainable and will go away anyway (or is about to do so). It's not the only system that can work fine, and in fact it's not really doing so anyway.
The dependency of Europe is certainly too small to be hurt badly. A loss of growth for a short time followed by a recovery (because growth depends on other factors in the long term anyway) is the most that the USA could do to Europe with an economic crisis.
The PRC would be be influenced much more. Not necessarily badly, though. They need to reduce their trade balance surplus and increase their domestic consumption faster than before anyway (not the least to keep internal peace).
This thread is becoming bizarre. I'm not sure what the point of it is anymore. What got everything really going was the question of "economic power" (which I think is a highly subjective concept) and whether the US has it or not because it's economy is increasingly "service" (another variable term that has a lot of problems) oriented.
Fuchs,
While an interesting discussion so far, I'm not really sure what your point is. It seems you are saying that the US lacks "economic power" because the US economy is becoming more "service" based. I disagree with that general conclusion along with many of your supporting arguments, which I won't spend the time to belabor here, but more importantly, I think we probably fundamentally disagree on what "economic power" is.
Long ago, agriculture was economic power. With the industrial revolution, industry became the primary source of economic power. My view is that we are in the midst of another revolution - one that won't be complete for quite some time. Industry remains relevant, but grows a bit less important each year. At some point, maybe in a century, industry will probably look a lot like agriculture does today - highly efficient, automated and therefore requiring very little labor. If this is indeed the case, then where are people going to work? How are they going to earn a living? They'll have "brain" and service jobs.
And that's really one source of the so-called "decline" in industry and manufacturing. In real terms, both have actually increased fairly steadily in the US during the last 50 years, not decreased. What has decreased is the labor required. Like agriculture before it, the amount of labor required has dropped and is continuing to drop. That labor has to go somewhere and the simple fact is that much of it goes to the service sector. Many of the graphs here may be instructive. The fact that those huge increases in productivity allow growth in other areas is a strength, not a weakness, IMO.
You seem to hold China up as some kind of industrial powerhouse. I suppose if your measure is plastic toys, clothes and toaster-ovens (as opposed to aircraft engines, for example) you might be right. However, if the global economy collapses tomorrow, I think it will be much easier for the US to go back to making it's own toasters than it will be for China to make it's own jet engines. So while your comparison of industrial capacity by various measures may be true on a macro level, its irrelevant in terms of "power" unless other factors are considered.
Your argument also neglects raw material and energy dependency - the EU, for example, is highly dependent on imported energy and raw materials to make steel - much more so than the United States. One might therefore argue that the US steel industry is more resilient than EU's when all factors are considered.
All this isn't to suggest that all is well in the US. The decline in Americans studying science and engineering is much more worrisome to me than not being the best in steel or shipbuilding or most anything else you and others have mentioned.
Bookmarks