I was going to join the Apathy Party but I simply couldn’t muster the energy…
-XT
[Homer Simpson]Mmmm, muster…[/Homer Simpson]
I’m still confused as to what you would have if not a ‘consumer economy’. Ecoomies don’t do anything else. Ever. The oens who came close to doing something else were Communist, and they were rather unpleasant.
Because the whole point to international trade (or any trade) is to take advantage of each trading partner’s comparative advantage. A nation may have a populace better trained in engineering, or may have better access to resources, or may be closer to subcomponent manufacturers, or may have a different tax structure. Maybe the culture rewards people with different traits, or the wage scales are different, or whatever.
By forcing foreign companies to manufacture in the U.S., you eliminate much of the value of trade. Now all you’re really doing is trading intellectual property.
Well yes, you need consumers as well as manufacturers. But here in America we are constantly told to buy buy buy. Don’t need it? Buy it anyway. What’s this “savings” I keep hearing about? Why save when you can spend. Can’t afford it? Just slap it on a credit card. Credit card maxed out? Transfer the balance to another and then go out and buy some more stuff. Here, we’ll send you dozens of credit card offers every year to make sure you can keep up with the Joneses.
I guess when I say consumer economy I think about how, generally speaking, for us as Americans, it seems to mean mindless buying of products and using lots of credit which enriches producers, service providers, and banks, even if it’s bad for us financially. And yes, no-one is holding a gun to our heads forcing us to spend, but since, unless I’m hearing wrong, we need to increase consumption to get our economy back on its feet again, then it seems that we are kind of forced to spend spend spend, since less production and servicing means less jobs are needed to provided products and services. So I really mean spending less and relying on credit less than we currently do as well as finding a way to prevent lots of job losses that might result from that.
And yet, people who do this are mocked and considered foolish idiots who get what they deserve.
I’m always amused how everyone else’s spending is mindless. WHy don’t you go ask people why they bought something, instead of blindly insisting it’s worthless. They evidently got something out of it, and given that you speak in only vague generalities, I don’t doubt many of them know their business better than you.
To me, that’s the fatal flaw in the reasoning of threads like this. It’s the unconscious assertion that a select few know what’s best for the majority, and that the majority simply can’t be trusted to know what’s best for themselves. They buy (to paraphrase the great sage of the SD) ‘worthless shinny junk’ instead of what they ‘need’ or ‘should’ buy. ‘Worthless’, ‘junk’, ‘need’ and ‘should’ being defined by someone who obviously knows what’s best for the masses and is saddened that they are too ignorant to know for themselves what they need or should or shouldn’t buy.
-XT
My understanding is 70% of the economy is consumption based. I assume the other 30% is a mix of education, R&D, infrastructure, military, criminal justice, etc. which aren’t directly consumption based but which allow for consumption.
I don’t know what the % is in other nations, I think some are as low as 50-60% consumption.
I would like to see less luxury spending and more of that money going to R&D investments since that is going to alleviate suffering over the long run and keep our system solvent. But how do you do that and have it work? I really don’t know.
I don’t know if you’ve been keeping up on current events as of lately but a lot of credit card companies have been taking away “our” credit cards.
Just a FYI.
China is not a valid proof that being an exporting country means poverty. It is an anecdote, but not proof.
China is poor but they are also growing. They are not choosing to be poorer - they are choosing to be richer than they were before they became a manufacturing nation.
Being an exporter does not make you poor. Far from it.
You know, no one has been able to explain this, not to anyone who asks it…
How long do you think America can continue to be an importing nation with massive trade deficits and an exploding national debt?
America’s (meager) growth for the last 10 years has been fueled by consumer(ism) debt. What will fuel our growth now?
Tell me, between America and China which country has experienced the most growth in the last 10 years? Without exploding consumer and national debt, that is.
Yet China requires products to be made in China and it is working well for them in lifting them out of poverty and achieving stellar economic growth.
You are arguing theory here and ralph124c was asking what was wrong with it. China is clearly demonstrating that requiring products to be made domestically is in fact working.
Which specific products do the Chinese require to be made domestically? So far, we’ve been offered “fighter jets”. Well, the US makes its fighter jets domestically.
Of course, I’m on ignore, so you won’t ‘hear’ any of this, but perhaps others who don’t have me on ignore will read it:
They have chosen to allow the majority of their people to remain poor and maintain their trade imbalance by tweaking their currency to remain pegged to substantially below our own.
No, but manipulating your currency and spending the money they get through the subsequent trade imbalance by buying up our debt certainly does…at least for the vast majority of Chinese.
Perhaps if you took the fingers from your ears and stopped saying ‘NANANANANNANA…I can’t HEAR you!!’ every time someone attempted to do so, you wouldn’t have to keep saying horseshit like this. Ehe?
Hard to say. I suppose as long as China is willing to continue to shovel back all the proceeds from their trade imbalance back into the US to maintain that imbalance.
This is like comparing the growth of Bill Gates to that of a guy who was born dirt poor and has managed to work his way up to being moderately middle class. Yeah, the dirt poor guy had more growth than Bill Gates did in a give year, percentage wise…but that’s because Billy Boy is already at the top, and a few percentage points mean so much more in absolute terms than the huge percentage gains that the poor man made.
-XT
Nope!
Increasing consumption/increasing spending will decrease unemployment in China, Japan, Canada, Mexico, etc. (as well as get Americans into even deeper debt than they already are)
If the things people buy (toys, cars, car parts, computers, televisions, radios, telephones, tools, appliances, dishes, shoes, sporting goods, furniture, clothes, bicycles, etc.) are made elsewhere, then it is NOT going to help unemployed Americans.
Besides, seizing the Means of Production is just so anti-climatic in a post-manufacturing world, right?
-XT
The current strategy of borrowing more, spending more, getting rid of American manufacturing jobs, and bringing in millions more immigrants each and every year is NOT!!! going to reduce unemployment of American citizens.
The best(only) way to lower unemployment of American citizens and improve the economy and make the dollar stronger, is to bring back manufacturing, esp of consumer goods.
In addition to bringing back American factories, we could also immediately open up millions of additional job openings by deporting millions of illegals.
The other bad part about importing consumer goods, is that the American people are being offeref cheaper ans lower quality goods.
Take shoes-when I was a kid, you could buy high-quality American made shoes.
My last pir of American made shoes (Bass) was so good that I had them resolded-three times. Now the crappy lowend shoes from China fit poorly, are uncomfotbale, and last (maybe) a year.
So our trade deficit will continue to grow, as we import more and more junk.
Meanwhile, domestically made product is either made for the luxury market (price Allen-Edmonds shoes lately?) or unavailable in any market segment (eg: television sets).
It would be great to have a midprice, midlevel of quality in domestically produced consumer goods, but somehow or another the answer is always “it can’t happen” or “it would cost too much.” It would cost whom too much, exactly, now?
Well, it sounds like you just discovered a great business opportunity. Go out there, make it work, and report back to us!
You make the assumption that factory jobs are the only ones that count in the unemployment number. Unless people are flying over to China to buy those things directly, then people in the US are employed in distribution and selling of those goods.