There's just something about manufacturing. Ask Rosie the Riveter. Ask the computer geeks and artists across America who create "Hacker Space" workshops to help each other invent and fabricate to their imaginations' content.
Yeah, it's cool to make stuff. The "maker," whether an inventor or engineer or welder gets a thrill out of performing work that results in visible, viable products. Manufacturing also gives the "makers" the feeling of empowerment that can be seen all over Rosie the Riveter's face.
Manufacturing is powerful. And power is coveted. That's why mother America always loved manufacturing most. Since the early days of this country, visionary political leaders like Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln nurtured manufacturing. They knew manufacturing builds a country's economic strength. And the capacity to manufacture secures a nation's military might. So President Obama's focus on reviving American manufacturing, including his proposal last week to give American manufacturers a small tax break, is wise, even if the banking brother and service sector sister feel aggrieved as a result.
President Obama said in his State of the Union address that his goal was to forge an economy built to last. That, he said, would be based on American manufacturing and American know-how, American-made energy and skilled American workers.
Since then, he has talked up his plans to reinvigorate manufacturing during several factory tours. At Master Lock in Milwaukee, Wis., he applauded the company for bringing 100 jobs back to America from overseas. The tax code should reflect that, the President said. He proposed the government give tax breaks to companies that on-shore jobs, instead of granting them to those that offshore.
It's illogical, even unpatriotic to use tax dollars to subsidize companies that send jobs overseas, transferring America's manufacturing power to foreign countries like China.
Later, in Everett, Wash., President Obama lauded The Boeing Co. for manufacturing planes in America. Orders for Boeing's commercial aircraft rose by more than 50 percent last year, and it hired 13,000 Americans.
During a tour of the plant where Boeing manufactures its 787 Dreamliner, the President said:
"We can't go back to an economy that was weakened by outsourcing and bad debt and phony financial profits."
Manufacturing, Obama pointed out, supports jobs throughout the economy, from mines to machines shops to malls. At the Boeing plant, he said:
"Every Dreamliner that rolls off the assembly line here in Everett supports thousands of jobs in different industries all across the country. Parts of the fuselage are manufactured in South Carolina and Kansas. Wing edges, they come from Oklahoma. Engines are assembled in Ohio. The tail fin comes from right down the road in Frederickson."
All of that explains the government loans to car manufacturers GM and Chrysler. It would have been devastating for the country to lose the industrial might and capacity of GM and Chrysler. In addition, at risk were 150,000 jobs at the two carmakers and untold hundreds of thousands of other manufacturing jobs at car part factories across the country and at real estate offices and restaurants and retailers.
Four years later, GM and Chrysler are profitable, repaying the loans with interest, and hiring workers. Still, the number of jobs at the Big Three auto companies is down by about 150,000 over the past five years, reflecting the overall job losses in manufacturing in America. Over the past 40 years, manufacturing employment declined from 25 percent to 9 percent, as manufacturing output fell from 25 percent of GDP to 12 percent.
Some of that loss is unavoidable as robots replace humans, but economist Jared Bernstein, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says, "a lot of it has to do with bad policy." The government picks winners and losers all the time with tax policy and subsidies and other measures. "It's just not very smart about it," Bernstein says. For example, it provides billions in subsidies to corporations to move jobs offshore.
A report called "Why Does Manufacturing Matter" by the Brookings Institution says government traditionally fostered manufacturing:
"History also reveals. . .there is no transformative investment that reshaped our economy, from railroads to the Internet, where the federal government did not partner with the private sector to overcome . . . barriers. . .To ignore this reality in the name of "not picking winners" . . .or whatever misguided ideology you want to plug in, is to concede global competition to those unburdened by such dangerously wrongheaded thinking."
"I want us to make stuff."
"Manufacturing has a special place in America."
Follow Leo W. Gerard on Twitter: www.twitter.com/uswblogger
Only the WEALTH CREATING industrialized nations (like China that the US consumers pay US dollars to make the imported consumer goods that US citizens import and consume) accumulate US dollars through their foreign trade have the amount of US dollars available (that the US government needs to borrow) to loan back to the US government to pay for US government expenses that are in excess of the US taxes collected.
The freshly printed paper US Treasury Bonds and other Securities have NO VALUE, except that the US government is allowing these US Treasury Bonds, and other Securities (that US citizens paid to foreigners in foreign nations to make the consumer products that we consumed) to be redeemed for US Dollars (Electronic Dollar Credits) that can be used to purchase title to (corporations that own) privately owned businesses, factories, casinos, hotels, farms, land, ports, refineries, forests, ports, breweries, distilleries, and other privately owned NATIONAL WEALTH and other assets located in the USA that were created by previous US generations prior to de-industrialization overseas instead of redeeming these freshly printed paper US Treasury Bonds with gold from Ft. Knox.
The US International Trade Balance (Deficit for the USA) indicates that Brazil, Russia, India, China, (BRIC) nations, plus Pakistan, South Korea, and the other industrialized countries of the world with positive net foreign trade balances are NET CREATORS of NATIONAL WEALTH for their nations, and the de-industrialized USA and most of the European nations with negative net trade balances are NET CONSUMERS (DESTROYERS) of the existing NATIONAL WEALTH in their nations, whose citizens live “high on the hog” by continuously borrowing wealth from the industrialized countries to pay for government activities.
The federal government outlays ranged from 18.2% to 19.1% of the GDP in 1998-2001 but have been between 24.1% and 25.2% of the GDP from 2009-2011, so the government is spending more than it did during the surplus years, in both relative and absolute terms.
We must add the cost of state, county, city and local governments to these percentages of the GDP.
===
All that is very true, but the one thing manufacturing can no longer do is provide a middle-class lifestyle, not to us, not to the Chinese, not to anyone. Automation has taken all the skill out of it, turning craftspeople into machine operators.
===
Maybe, but it is very, very profitable to do so. We have to stop acting as if our public policies are merely incorrect and misguided. They're not. They are what they are because that is what most benefits our small ruling elite.
Why not let the candidates fund their own elections?
Why not have one or more websites where candidates can schedule 15 minute live broadcast messages, one at a time.
Rethinking Free Trade
"by Robert Kuttner
WHEN PAUL Samuelson, the dean of American economistsÂ, begins questioninÂg the benefits of free trade, it is a bit like the pope having doubts about the virgin birth. But Samuelson, a Nobel laureate and the author of America's best-known economics textbook, has reopened a debate on the most settled issue in economics. He's done it with a stunner of an article in the Journal of Economic PerspectivÂes that has created immense controversÂy -- and an opportunitÂy for Americans to rethink previously unchallengÂed assumptionÂs.
[snip]
But here Samuelson dissents. What if the lower-wage country also captures the advanced industry?
If enough higher-payÂing jobs are lost by American workers to outsourcinÂg, he calculatesÂ, then the gain from the cheaper prices may not compensate for the loss in US purchasing power. In other words, the low wages at Wal-Mart do not necessarilÂy make up for their bargain prices.
"Free trade is not always a win-win situation,Â" Samuelson concludes. It is particularÂly a problem, he says, in a world where large countries with far lower wages, such as India and China, are increasingÂly able to make almost any product or offer almost any service performed in the United States.
If we trade freely with them, then the powerful drag of their far lower wages will begin dragging down our average wages..."
Too bad Samuelson stopped short of a solution.
I am going to import wind driven electrical generators from China and then hire a couple of US citizens (or maybe illegal aliens) to remove the Chinese nameplates and then attach a new nameplate with my factory name, address, serial number, with "Made in the USA" on the nameplate in my factory, and then that product will be "Made in the USA"?
I am going to make sufficient political contributions to a sufficient number of congressmen and/or hire lobbyists to have a law passed to require that only "US Made Products" be installed on all of the federally funded "Green Energy" projects, then I will be able to sell these wind driven electrical generators at almost any price that I desire, and the US unemployment statistics will not be changed.
If the US government objects, then I will have the wind driven electrical generators, blades and the towers delivered to my factory without nameplates and then they will be parts for final assembly in the USA by Americans when US citizens add only the nameplate to each of the Chinese wind driven electrical generator assemblies and parts.
I will pay the Chinese with paper US dollars for these wind driven electrical generators.
Chinese and other foreign individuals in foreign industrialized nations that create wealth will eventually own everything of value in the USA as they redeem their freshly printed paper US Treasury Bonds and US dollars that they earned by manufacturing US consumer products for title to all privately owned businesses that are located in the USA.
Foreigners will then immigrate to the USA and eventually become the major (or maybe the only) source of employment for US citizens after they redeem their US Treasury bonds for title to and control of all of the assets located in the USA.
The US population will then become employees; possibly indentured servants; or maybe even beg to become slaves or indentured servants owned by the foreign countries and/or foreign individuals that will own everything of value in the USA in the very near future if the US government continues to destroy the US economy and the purchasing power of the US dollar with deficit federal government spending.
"Made in America" and "Made in China" labels may soon be replaced by:
"Made in the World" labels
http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/11/0930/madeintheworld.html
European TechnocratÂs May Soon Deprive Americans Of Knowing Where Everything They Buy Is Made
"The World Trade OrganizatiÂon, the OECD, the InternatioÂnal Chamber of Commerce and the European Commission are moving aggressiveÂly to eliminate "Country of Origin" labeling, claiming that it does not reflect the current structure of global trade. The Europe-basÂed organizatiÂons instead want to adopt a "Made in the World" logo for all products on the grounds that global supply chains have rendered country of origin labeling inaccurate and obsolete.
The intent of the proposal is to reduce public pressure on politicianÂs for protectionÂist trade policies..Â."
More at:
http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/miwi_e/miwi_e.htm
WTO | Made in the World
They aren't, to the best of my knowledge, from the Eastern Bloc lexicon, nor is it meant to abrade you personally....and solidarity can also mean strong in connection: that we are all connected, esp. as American workers. No matter your 'job' or education, or background, or geography. (When you go to Amish country, or Poland, or Italy, or....don't we all speak "differently"?)
It's just a manner of speaking; more like my SW Ohio twang that sometimes, more often than not, is NOT what my mind is on when I talk - I'm thinking of my words. And the point I want to make. I don't think you were being condescended to, honestly.
Don't shoot the messenger - or discount the points - merely from jargon.
To fund their election campaign candidates should look to the government. The government pays the salaries of legislators, so they don't have to accept bribes to pay their campaign expenses, and the government should pay the expenses of candidates for public office for the same reason.
Public funding of candidates would take less money out of the economy than the present system of unlimited contributions, which corporations can now make since the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case. Corporations can now deduct all their contributions from their income taxes as a business expense. Doing this lowers the taxes corporations pay in taxes, so individuals have to make up the difference.
Why did our elected presidents and congressmen create all of these "FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS"?
Do you think that maybe the foreign product manufacturers that export consumer products to the USA might have paid professional US lobbyists to spend hundreds of thousands of US dollars on wine, food, women, song, vacations, cash, sexual services, corporate jobs for the (unemployable) children/wives/girlfriends on enough of the US senators and US congressmen (and their congressional aids who actually control the members of congress) plus campaign contributions to entice (bribe) enough of our Republican and Democratic US Presidents, Congressmen and Senators for the past 20 years to create all of that "FREE TRADE LEGISLATION" to ratify various trade agreements that allowed, caused, and ECONOMICALLY REQUIRED our businesses to take advantage of the lower labor costs, lower electrical energy costs, lower business taxes, lower payroll taxes to pay for health care costs, lower unemployment insurance costs, lower environmental manufacturing costs and other anti-business costs that are not required in various foreign countries with fewer anti-business laws that are/were applicable to businesses in the USA?
China has a Most Favored Nation Trade Status instead of a FREE TRADE AGREEMENT, why did President Clinton grant that to China instead of a FREE TRADE AGREEMENT?
Which is most advantageous to the UDA? China?
I really meant all of us in one way or another. I was not drawing a distinction between a business owner or his/her employees or consumers.
Oddly, you did.
o A pharmacist didn't know 90% of our antibiotics come from China until I told her.
o A registered nurse in the Texas Medical Center didn't know hundreds of U.S. hospitals use offshore radiologists.
Congressman Gary Peters (D,MI) has introduced the Outsourcing Accountability Act
http://peters.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=22&itemid=487
Congressman Gary Peters (D-MI 9) : News Releases : U.S. Rep. Gary Peters Introduces Outsourcing Accountability Act
"Washington, D.C. - This morning, as reported by the Washington Post, U.S. Rep. Gary Peters (MI) introduced the Outsourcing Accountability Act with lead cosponsors U.S. Rep. Tim Bishop (NY) and U.S. Rep. Jerry McNerney (CA). This common sense legislation would help consumers and investors make informed choices about whether they want to spend their hard earned dollars on companies that create American jobs or companies that outsource them.
Right now when publicly traded companies file their annual SEC reports, they are required to disclose the number of employees they have. The Outsourcing Accountability Act would simply require these companies to disclose these same figures except they would need to breakdown the numbers by country and state in America.
From 2000-2009, multinational corporations cut 2.9 million U.S. jobs while adding 2.4 million overseas..."
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/11/05/349329/china-special-c919-update.html
CHINA SPECIAL: C919 update
"...CFM InternatioÂnal Providing the Leap-X1C engine that will power the aircraft. Has signed agreement with AVIC's Commercial Aircraft Engine to study the feasibilitÂy of an assembly line and engine test facility in China.
GE Aviation Supplying the core processing system, cockpit display systems, on-board maintenancÂe systems and flight recorders with partner AVIC Systems.
Rockwell Collins Supplying the communicatÂion, navigation and surveillanÂce systems on the C919, as well as the in-flight entertainmÂent system and cabin core system. It is doing the work with Chinese partners China ElectronicÂs Technology Avionics (part of state-owneÂd China ElectronicÂs Technology group), AVIC's China Leihua Electronic Technology Research Institute and AVIC's Shanghai Aero MeasuremenÂt-ControllÂing Research Institute.
Honeywell Providing fly-by-wirÂe flight control system, inertial reference and air data systems, auxiliary power unit, wheels and brakes. It is partnering China's Flight Automatic Control Research Institute, Hunan Boyun New Materials and Changsha Xinhang Wheel and Brake.
Parker Aerospace Supplying the aircraft's hydraulics system, flight control actuation and fuel tank systems in partnershiÂp with AVIC Systems.
Liebherr-AÂerospace Providing the landing gear and air management systems through partnershiÂps with AVIC's landing gear manufacturÂing subsidiary in Changsha and Nanjing EngineerinÂg Institute of Aircraft Systems.
Eaton Supplying the fuel and hydraulic conveyance systems, cockpit panel assemblies and dimming control system..."