That is a bit of a dated philosophy, but you're entitled to your opinion. Building an entire economy around manufacturing would essentially require compromises in other areas that we have made significant strides in. There is a lot of role sharing in modern day manufacturing as well - it isn't always realistic (or efficient) to have both the raw materials and the final assembly in a single country. And then we get back to the cost issue - it ultimately has to make sense.
Very true. Going back to a heavily manufacturing oriented economy would require compromises. Not that it’s not doable in a country of 350M people and lots of space. Germany and Japan are probably the two best examples of balance. And with much more in the way of population, space, energy, resources, etc., the USA certainly would have a different paradigm.
The de-industrialization is one of the major reasons why we have such an issue with the poor in this country. You could indeed point to drugs and fatherless homes, amongst other things, but if there were more opportunities to thrive in these areas, I suspect that some portion of the population in some areas may not be as downtrodden. The rest - well sooner or later they need to be dealt with, no? Or are we going to just let them slit their own throats? Or somebody else’s? Or just die from drugs? I don’t see a great option. And I’m not sure that the path of them only being able to find service oriented jobs which cycle money from other services, medical, and financial products is the right answer either.
Regarding cost and quality, I think it is pretty well established now that quality product can be made most anywhere, and it has always been the case that junk could be made anywhere too. The happy medium is a reasonably quality product, made domestically, not on a tiny island 3000+ miles away, that people can afford. Unfortunately it seems that the MBAs in this case couldn’t make the numbers work, but why? “Corporate greed”? Something else? It’s a lot of investment and money to walk away from.
There certainly is a jobs angle here, and a strategic angle. Every day in the news the Sabre rattlers talk more and more about the prospect of war with China. At minimum, the movement of China on the world stage as a peer competitor and dominant power. The inability of most to afford anything that isn’t pacific rim made, the centralization of so much manufacturing in one tiny locale that is so poorly located relative to the peer competitor, and the fact that we probably couldn’t bring manufacturing back in any timely manner is indeed a strategic issue, whether warnwith China breaks out of or not. This isn’t a production in Mexico to save labor cost type issue. This is much larger. And while both affect domestic jobs and domestic capability/output, one has more far-reaching effects.
I believe it was Cornwallis who recognized that after the war, Britain would have to trade with the people it was fighting. That sort of an angle may help in any Pacific issues that arise. But dominance on the world stage is a bigger issue here and tools is just one facet of that bigger issue at-large.
toolguyd.com
www.wuwm.com
