Author Topic: We Need Manufacturing Back in America (Read 1578 times)

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #15 on:** August 28, 2007, 12:23:58 PM »

All this *****ing and moaning. If the American Manufacturing industry isn't lazy and isn't failing, then you get your bellybutton into owning one of these companies.

Get back to us with the results.

swoose · « **Reply #16 on:** August 28, 2007, 12:35:49 PM »

I can' t speak for the rest of the manufacturing but we did all we could to help make cheaper and better paper before we were shutdown. The "shareholders "were not satisfied.
I don't think lazy describes the effort we made. Our work force is cut so thin now there is no room for laziness.

SIK1 · « **Reply #17 on:** August 28, 2007, 01:06:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BigGun
That is because Buchanan is nonsense most of the time. Manufacturing in the US will definitely continue to decline, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, unless of course you are in manufacturing with no other skills and have ignored the writing on the wall.

The decline of manufacturing definitely is a bad thing for the United States. If you are not manufacturing products then all you are doing is consuming products. The United States is already the largest single consumer market in the world, if it was not for our manufacuring that we still have helping offsetting the trade deficit that we currently have we would be so far in debt to foreign countries that you might as well plant a Chinese flag on the capital and call it done.

It is not entirely about laziness or poor quality control. It is more about standard of living. It is very difficult to compete with a country that not only subsidizes their industry, but also only pays the equivalent of a dollar or two a day in wages, and the workers have no recourse to object their low pay, and poor living conditions.

Our government is very much to blame for our present situation, by not taking into account the living conditions and environmental conditions in the countries we trade with. China is a prime example of this, the living and environmental conditions are third world at best yet we have no penalties imposed on their imports to address these issues. So our products are unfairly put at a disadvantage, because we care about our people and our environnment.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #18 on:** August 28, 2007, 01:12:14 PM »

The decline of manufacturing is nothing more then a signal of the switch to a service industry. Only people who know nothing of economics would think it's a bad thing.

SIK1 · « **Reply #19 on:** August 28, 2007, 02:06:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
The decline of manufacturing is nothing more then a signal of the switch to a service industry. Only people who know nothing of economics would think it's a bad thing.

Let me guess, you have an MA in economics. Just another example of why society in the U.S. is going down the toilet.

A service industry only works if you have something to service, and can afford the service.

When the U.S. is no longer producing anything and no one can afford your services you tell me it's a good thing.

What made this country great, and makes countries powerful is the ability to manufacture, be it toys, guns, or computers. If you seriously think that a country can maintain a standard of living that we here in the States have become accustomed too by just providing services. You are going to have a rude awakening, when we no longer produce anything and you are sneeking across the border into Mexico looking for a job.

stockli · « **Reply #20 on:** August 28, 2007, 02:10:33 PM »

laser,

what happens when we also ship alot of our service jobs over seas?

Ie India for IT.

Then what, what will we do Mr. Economist.

Oh wait we can all go work in the financial industry, perfect when most of the country would be unemployed and broke.

BigGun · « **Reply #21 on:** August 28, 2007, 02:13:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SIK1
The decline of manufacturing definitely is a bad thing for the United States. If you are not manufacturing products then all you are doing is consuming products. The United States is already the largest single consumer market in the world, if it was not for our manufacuring that we still have helping offsetting the trade deficit that we currently have we would be so far in debt to foreign countries that you might as well plant a Chinese flag on the capital and call it done.

I guess it is all a matter of what you consider a bad thing. More efficient use of capital is a good thing. I am a firm believer in capitalism and free markets. If a local company costs $10 to make a widget, and another company in another country can produce the same widget for $8 (including shipping costs to send it around the world), one of two things will happen in the long run. 1) the local company will improve to produce the widget at $8, or 2) the company will go out of business and the capital will be redistributed to more productive uses. How am I any worse off?

The notion we might as well plant a chinese flag is ridiculous. It almost sounds like the comments from the late 80s with the Japanese. Look at the how well they did with investing our $. They sure did good with alll the capital investments in the US. Pebble Beach? Rock center?

Tariffs and taxes just create inefficiencies. As far as trade deficit, the can and do continue for long times. Last fall I had the opportunity to have lunch and speak with Art Laffer down at Torrey Pines. He has interesting comments and thoughts about trade deficits, and how the persist because of the strong financial structure of the US. Some of his writings on the subject are a worthy read.

With my job, we invest capital around the globe, both private and public investments. A main focus is highest return on our $ for the given level of risk. If I buy shares of company X, they better be focused on return. It is their duty. I own a piece of the company. They better not be trying to transact in $10 widgets, if the market for widgets is $8. If they do, I sell my shares with everyone else and the company goes out of business. Hell, my goal is to invest with the next guy that can produce widgets for $4. It will turn out to be good return, much better than the company that produces widgets for $10.

Edited, just found article from Laffer about trade deficit. I am only econ graduate, no phd. Art is pretty well qualified though. Destination USA

stockli · « **Reply #22 on:** August 28, 2007, 02:16:30 PM »

Sik, good post.

Our government actually makes it easier for overseas companies to do business here than domestic.

Look at the tax codes alone, especially on equipment amortization.

Free market is great when its free trade for both sides. It doesnt work when companies are subsidized by their govt and can therefore sell goods for a cheaper price.

swoose · « **Reply #23 on:** August 28, 2007, 02:50:44 PM »

I own a piece of the company. If they do, I sell my shares with everyone else and the company goes out of business.

Thank you for proving my point about the shareholders not being happy. All you care about is the bottom line and not the amount of people that are put out of work with families to free,put clothes on their back and educate them.
BTW are you a Republican?

Swoose

swoose · « **Reply #24 on:** August 28, 2007, 02:51:58 PM »

families to free
Correction: Families to feed.

indy007 · « **Reply #25 on:** August 28, 2007, 03:02:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by stockli
laser,

what happens when we also ship alot of our service jobs over seas?

Ie India for IT.

Then what, what will we do Mr. Economist.

You wait patiently for the cost of living to continue increasing in India, then relocate your services to a cheaper country.

or you take advantage of the political backlash and poor service results from the companies that relocated, and ramp up your marketing for a locally provided service and leech their customers away.

stockli · « **Reply #26 on:** August 28, 2007, 03:06:49 PM »

Indy you are assuming you have money to relocate to a knew country after having gone through a recession or depression.

Furthermore, the political backlash will not happen as most of the voting population are sheep and have not a clue except what politicians tell them

john9001 · « **Reply #27 on:** August 28, 2007, 03:07:42 PM »

"I own a piece of the company. If they do, I sell my shares with everyone else and the company goes out of business"

that's very interesting, just who do you sell your shares to? Also those shares are on the secondary market, the company already has the money from the original sale of the shares. So why would the company go out of business because the share price fell?

are you sure you work for a investment company?

BigGun · « **Reply #28 on:** August 28, 2007, 03:09:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by swoose
I own a piece of the company. If they do, I sell my shares with everyone else and the company goes out of business.

Thank you for proving my point about the shareholders not being happy. All you care about is the bottom line and not the amount of people that are put out of work with families to free,put clothes on their back and educate them.
BTW are you a Republican?

Swoose

I have a fiduciary duty to earn the highest return for a level of risk. It is a serious duty, and no where in fiduciary duty is it concern with putting clothes on peoples back. In fact there is plenty of case law that shows I would be violating my fiduciary duty if I used social issues such as that in the decision making process.

I figure the $10s of thousand the government takes from me each year is being used to educate & cloth them. (Jokingly stated)

Bottomline, shareholders own the company, not anyone else. Some shareholders have social agendas, some don't. If you don't like an action of a company, buy some shares of it & vote your proxies.

Probably more of an independent that leans heavily to republican party. If I were to label myself as either democrat or republican, the republican all the way.

Neubob · « **Reply #29 on:** August 28, 2007, 03:10:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by swoose
I own a piece of the company. If they do, I sell my shares with everyone else and the company goes out of business.

Thank you for proving my point about the shareholders not being happy. All you care about is the bottom line and not the amount of people that are put out of work with families to free,put clothes on their back and educate them.
BTW are you a Republican?

Swoose

If a stock isn't doing well, and its prospects for doing well start to vanish, a stockholder should pull out. Staying in to keep a failing company on life support is both stupid on a personal level, in that it will drain your own resources, thus putting your own family out on the street(figuratively), as it is stupid on a larger level. Resources need to be put to efficient use, and while providing financial crutches for companies can be good, it is just as often a futile waste of wealth. Those same resources can be invested elsewhere, thus nurturing something that is not diseased at its core.

People invest to make a profit. If you have a problem with that basic principal, don't engage in it.