- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Manufacturing now smallest share of US Economy in 72 years--
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:41 pm to udtiger
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:41 pm to udtiger
quote:
you do realize that if manufacturing were to grow at, say 5%, but the rest of the economy grows at 10%, it would still constitute a smaller share of the US economy, right?
wouldn't that imply that American manufacturing sucks?
0
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:41 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Ok give a list of media that says what you want to hear I will try to stick to those sources.
Start with one that was factually correct on The special counsel investigation, did not claim a Trump election would crash the economy, that predicted Trump would at least bring unemployment to just 4% flat, and has not incorrectly claimed an imminent recession over the past year.
Annnnnnd go!
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:45 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Lets see I get 100 insults for every one lame attempt to actually dispute the links I post and I am a caustic prick.
You get insulted because for frick's sake, you make a bot look like it has diverse ideas.
Whatever your subject of the moment is, you basically make a one-trick pony look well rounded.
THAT is why you get insulted. Because it's just fricking weird.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:45 pm to CleverUserName
reuters.
and anyone reporting on business stuff is all opinionated economists. some are bears some are bulls. some are doves and some are hawks, some follow different theories of macroeconomics, some are bond traders some are equity traders and some are commodities guys. Everyone has an opinion.
and anyone reporting on business stuff is all opinionated economists. some are bears some are bulls. some are doves and some are hawks, some follow different theories of macroeconomics, some are bond traders some are equity traders and some are commodities guys. Everyone has an opinion.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:47 pm to CleverUserName
Real talk though, did anyone think that the point of any of this was to spur on a "manufacturing renaissance" in the US, or believe that is even a remote possibility?
Nothing that has been done is actually going to drive manufacturing back to the US.No, the point is to punish China into agreeing to IP protections and make them wary of market manipulation.
Which is fine, I don't like it because as a free market capitalist I don't like tariffs or subsidies, but I do see how it is a reasonable course of action.
Nothing that has been done is actually going to drive manufacturing back to the US.No, the point is to punish China into agreeing to IP protections and make them wary of market manipulation.
Which is fine, I don't like it because as a free market capitalist I don't like tariffs or subsidies, but I do see how it is a reasonable course of action.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:47 pm to DeathAndTaxes
You are EXACTLY right.
Poster after poster here has said that we have lost jobs since the seventies. That the Chinese and others have "stolen" jobs yet we have more employment than ever at higher wages than ever.
They listen to what fits their narrative and ignore what does not.
As I said in the OP the share of that economy that the government classifies as manufacturing does not matter to me. Growth in the economy does.
(We are fools to make US manufacturers pay more for inputs like steel and basic chemicals to make the higher value goods we now make. How do we expect them to compete worldwide? Protecting a handful of steel makers at the expenses of ten times the number of companies that use steel is foolish.)
Poster after poster here has said that we have lost jobs since the seventies. That the Chinese and others have "stolen" jobs yet we have more employment than ever at higher wages than ever.
They listen to what fits their narrative and ignore what does not.
As I said in the OP the share of that economy that the government classifies as manufacturing does not matter to me. Growth in the economy does.
(We are fools to make US manufacturers pay more for inputs like steel and basic chemicals to make the higher value goods we now make. How do we expect them to compete worldwide? Protecting a handful of steel makers at the expenses of ten times the number of companies that use steel is foolish.)
This post was edited on 10/29/19 at 1:49 pm
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:49 pm to yatesdog38
quote:
reuters.
Reuters is a good one. Financial Times is another.
CNBC is all doom and gloom and hyperbolic, and you can tell a couple of the anchors have personal biases, but for the most part I find the statements made are factual.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:49 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
Start with one that was factually correct on The special counsel investigation, did not claim a Trump election would crash the economy, that predicted Trump would at least bring unemployment to just 4% flat, and has not incorrectly claimed an imminent recession over the past year.
Annnnnnd go!
Annnnnnd downvote just for asking for financial links related to fact based reporting and not feelings.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:51 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
you basically make a one-trick pony look well rounded.
Before making such accusations you should at least try to see if they are true. I invite you to look up the subjects of the threads I start.
Doesn't matter if you do or not but you are wrong.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:53 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
You are EXACTLY right.
Poster after poster here has said that we have lost jobs since the seventies. That the Chinese and others have "stolen" jobs yet we have more employment than ever at higher wages than ever.
They listen to what fits their narrative and ignore what does not.
As I said in the OP the share of that economy that the government classifies as manufacturing does not matter to me. Growth in the economy does.
(We are fools to make US manufacturers pay more for inputs like steel and basic chemicals to make the higher value goods we now make. How do we expect them to compete worldwide? Protecting a handful of steel makers at the expenses of ten times the number of companies that use steel is foolish.)
WHoa there killer, you went beyond that in your post. You suggested that the tariffs have significantly negatively impacted manufacturing jobs and output, and I don't think that is what the data shows.
My point was that the negative trend hasn't been impacted one way or the other. The fact is that the US is not going to return to being a manufacturing economy, tariffs or not, we are consumers that put out services.
Also, I would level the same point against you that I did against Taurus in the other thread, you are trying to view things in a vacuum.
You can't say that "clearly the protectionist tariffs are harming American manufactures ability to export" without acknowledging that other factors like currency strength and a global slowdown in consumption are contributing.
This post was edited on 10/29/19 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:53 pm to I B Freeman
You should be all butt hurt about Nancy sitting on USMC instead of feeding your Trump hate.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:54 pm to yatesdog38
I think I have used Reuter's links when I tell Trumpkins that a deal is near and that it will mostly be about policies in China that are important to US multinationals and deals on commodities from the US.
Both are true.
Both are true.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:54 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
Real talk though, did anyone think that the point of any of this was to spur on a "manufacturing renaissance" in the US, or believe that is even a remote possibility?
It doesn’t have to be a “manufacturing renaissance”.
However, we should NOT have presidents and staff bend over and allow China to dictate all the terms on trade and routinely steal manufacturing designs and secrets only to turn it around and sell it to the US at a reduced slave labor cost with zero R&D overhead costs.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:55 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Clearly Trump's protectionist tariffs are having the opposite effect on US American manufacturing as manufacturers are losing export markets because their imported inputs are more costly than their foreign competitors.
Your Econ 101 drivel doesn't impress anyone with half a brain. Just stop.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:57 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Almost daily we read of the negative impacts of the trade war. Almost daily we see another seemingly major news piece on the trade war.
Do you ever wonder why that is?
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:57 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:
You should be all butt hurt about Nancy sitting on USMC
You can review my post on that subject. I have said Nancy and Trump made a deal to pass USMCA in August when Trump agreed to a MASSIVE increase in the debt limit with very little hoopla. I expect they will sign it soon.
I have also pointed out the main democrat to blame for USMCA not being in place today is Wilbur Ross. But for his attempts to expand protectionist policies to benefit his friends in the steel business AFTER the deal was made a republican House could have voted on it and passed it.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 1:59 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
It doesn’t have to be a “manufacturing renaissance”.
However, we should NOT have presidents and staff bend over and allow China to dictate all the terms on trade and routinely steal manufacturing designs and secrets only to turn it around and sell it to the US at a reduced slave labor cost with zero R&D overhead costs.
That was the general point of my post, I'm sorry if I didn't get that across.
Certain members of the administration have tried to say these policies are an attempt to bring jobs back to America.
If that does happen, those jobs aren't going to be in manufacturing.
This post was edited on 10/29/19 at 2:00 pm
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:00 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
You can't say that "clearly the protectionist tariffs are harming American manufactures ability to export" without acknowledging that other factors like currency strength and a global slowdown in consumption are contributing.
Does anyone need any data to ascertain that a US manufacturer paying 25% more for steel inputs in his finished product is at a disadvantage to any foreign competitor on a global basis?
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:02 pm to DeathAndTaxes
I'm no longer close to TV to see CNBC anymore. If you are plugged in everyday then you know who is who.
I'm not a huge fan of financial times... but that is just more of a layout, popup, familiarity thing.
Bloomberg TV is a good one if you are talking about TV channels. I have it through YouTube TV. I'll turn it on to see what the asian markets are doing if I can't sleep.
OAN is the best network.****
I'm not a huge fan of financial times... but that is just more of a layout, popup, familiarity thing.
Bloomberg TV is a good one if you are talking about TV channels. I have it through YouTube TV. I'll turn it on to see what the asian markets are doing if I can't sleep.
OAN is the best network.****
This post was edited on 10/29/19 at 2:03 pm
Posted on 10/29/19 at 2:05 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Before making such accusations you should at least try to see if they are true. I invite you to look up the subjects of the threads I start.
Oh fricking please.
The ratio isn't even in the same universe as anyone else.
Sheesh.
quote:
Doesn't matter if you do or not but you are wrong.
This is just stupid.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News