A strong manufacturing base and national security

[Texashiker]

While I was replying to a thread yesterday about how having factories relates to a country being a superpower, I started thinking about how a strong manufacturing base relates to national security

When the topic of free trade comes up, rarely do I see anything mentioned about national security.

Do most people not realize that the US no longer has steel mills to build our factories, much less build tools of war.

Unlike during world war II, the US can not retool factories to make weapons of war. During World War II, what would have happened if the factories had to be built first, and then start producing planes, tanks, rifles, clothes. In the 1940s we had a strong manufacturing base, unlike today.

Lets say that china gets pissed off about something and declares war on the US. Do most people realize we have only a few shipyards in the entire nation? The shipyards that built ships in the 1940s and 1950s closed decades ago, and the equipment has been sold off piecemeal. In a lot of cases, the only thing that remains of those once great shipyards that employed thousands of people, is bare ground.

How are we supposed to build factories that could manufacture engines, if we do not have steel mills? How are we supposed to build ships, if we do not have shipyards?

For those of you that do not know, shipyards can also build offshore drilling rigs.

Wars do not have to be fought on the battlefield, what would happen if china says "no more stuff for you". In a matter of weeks everything from car parts to clothes would dry up. The population of the US would be sent into a panic.

A few weeks ago I did a brake job on my wifes SUV - the brake pads were made in china.

Without imports from china, the US as we know it can not exist.

To make matters worse, society has been taught the people who make a living by the sweat of their brow are stupid. The number of skilled craftsmen in the US drops with every passing year.

How is the US supposed to defend itself, if we do not have steel mills, do not have factories, and do not have skilled workers.

 

[Infohawk]

It's not that rare is it? In that same thread you reference, the second post (by yours truly of course) discusses national security.

What is surprising is that this argument rarely seems to be listened to by conservatives on this board or elsewhere, who are usually the biggest defense hawks. They seem to be fine with the US de-industrializing and China industrializing. Not only is it a bad idea to have a totalitarian country be the largest economy in the world, but beyond that we need a manufacturing base for the reasons you mentioned.

And no I'm not saying Democrats are great on this issue I'm saying I'd expect more from conservatives on this.

 

[Ausm]

America's manufacturing base has has been shrinking for the last 30 years and now "some" of the Politicians are realizing this is a HUGE mistake because if you can't make most the shit you use and this means weapons too you are in deep shit.

 

[Genx87]

America's manufacturing base has has been shrinking for the last 30 years and now "some" of the Politicians are realizing this is a HUGE mistake because if you can't make most the shit you use and this means weapons too you are in deep shit.

Define shrinking.

 

[Genx87]

While I was replying to a thread yesterday about how having factories relates to a country being a superpower, I started thinking about how a strong manufacturing base relates to national security

When the topic of free trade comes up, rarely do I see anything mentioned about national security.

Do most people not realize that the US no longer has steel mills to build our factories, much less build tools of war.

Unlike during world war II, the US can not retool factories to make weapons of war. During World War II, what would have happened if the factories had to be built first, and then start producing planes, tanks, rifles, clothes. In the 1940s we had a strong manufacturing base, unlike today.

Lets say that china gets pissed off about something and declares war on the US. Do most people realize we have only a few shipyards in the entire nation? The shipyards that built ships in the 1940s and 1950s closed decades ago, and the equipment has been sold off piecemeal. In a lot of cases, the only thing that remains of those once great shipyards that employed thousands of people, is bare ground.

How are we supposed to build factories that could manufacture engines, if we do not have steel mills? How are we supposed to build ships, if we do not have shipyards?

For those of you that do not know, shipyards can also build offshore drilling rigs.

Wars do not have to be fought on the battlefield, what would happen if china says "no more stuff for you". In a matter of weeks everything from car parts to clothes would dry up. The population of the US would be sent into a panic.

A few weeks ago I did a brake job on my wifes SUV - the brake pads were made in china.

Without imports from china, the US as we know it can not exist.

To make matters worse, society has been taught the people who make a living by the sweat of their brow are stupid. The number of skilled craftsmen in the US drops with every passing year.

How is the US supposed to defend itself, if we do not have steel mills, do not have factories, and do not have skilled workers.

Why cant our factories be retooled for war?

 

[jstern01]

You can lay the blame for a large part of this at the feet of government and the idea of Free Trade. We need to look no further than in the late 1800's/early 1900's as to the total devastating effects of Free Trade. Until the 1880's England was clearly the world's most powerful nation, its factories produced goods and materials used the world around, they controlled over 1/4 the world's population and their navy ruled the oceans. Then England embarked on a mission of free trade, we know the rest.

Simple fact is that Free Trade rarely benefits the more industrialized countries in the long run, in fact it just shifts the work and manufacturing to cheaper sources, and when you need to ramp up production to address military or political needs, you are at a lose.

 

[Genx87]

You can lay the blame for a large part of this at the feet of government and the idea of Free Trade. We need to look no further than in the late 1800's/early 1900's as to the total devastating effects of Free Trade. Until the 1880's England was clearly the world's most powerful nation, its factories produced goods and materials used the world around, they controlled over 1/4 the world's population and their navy ruled the oceans. Then England embarked on a mission of free trade, we know the rest.

Simple fact is that Free Trade rarely benefits the more industrialized countries in the long run, in fact it just shifts the work and manufacturing to cheaper sources, and when you need to ramp up production to address military or political needs, you are at a lose.

You mean England lost its ability to enslave colonies to enrich the empire? That damn free market! If only England continued to colonize the world over it would be so much better off than her colonies! Screw the rest of the world right?

It benefits industrialized countries just fine. People just dont like the consequence of having to compete within a global labor market.

 

[Ausm]

Define shrinking.

Usually means getting smaller I work in the metals Plastic Injection molding industry and I can tell you that I see 10 Chinese molds for every 1 US mold that comes in the shop. One good thing tho is that the Chinese workmanship is so substandard that it opened up a new industry in the U.S. Tool shops called "rework"

 

[jstern01]

You mean England lost its ability to enslave colonies to enrich the empire? That damn free market! If only England continued to colonize the world over it would be so much better off than her colonies! Screw the rest of the world right?

It benefits industrialized countries just fine. People just dont like the consequence of having to compete within a global labor market.

That is one view point, might be valid if history did not show otherwise. You can look at the decline of the British empire with all of its faults and see similar comparasions when looking at the impact of Free Trade on the US.

 

[Genx87]

Usually means getting smaller I work in the metals Plastic Injection molding industry and I can tell you that I see 10 Chinese molds for every 1 US mold that comes in the shop. One good thing tho is that the Chinese workmanship is so substandard that it opened up a new industry in the U.S. Tool shops called "rework"

What I mean is by what metric? Raw output has been increasing despite this "shrinking". What we are losing are manufacturing job that is more efficient to be sent to other nations. What we have left are higher skilled better paying manufacturing jobs.

 

[Infohawk]

It benefits industrialized countries just fine. People just dont like the consequence of having to compete within a global labor market.

Isn't that a bit inconsistent? If it really benefited industrialized countries most people wouldn't dislike the consequences would they?

 

[Infohawk]

What I mean is by what metric? Raw output has been increasing despite this "shrinking". What we are losing are manufacturing job that is more efficient to be sent to other nations. What we have left are higher skilled better paying manufacturing jobs.

Do you really think we've reached some sort of stable equilibrium? You don't think the trend is for more jobs and industries to go abroad? It seems that way to me. It started with low-skill manufacturing jobs, but it hasn't stopped there at all. Now we have office jobs going abroad which is why we're reaching a critical mass of disgruntled first-worlders. Even high end work like medical care and legal work is being done abroad now. There's absolutely no reason to think a lot more engineering can't be done abroad.

 

[werepossum]

You can lay the blame for a large part of this at the feet of government and the idea of Free Trade. We need to look no further than in the late 1800's/early 1900's as to the total devastating effects of Free Trade. Until the 1880's England was clearly the world's most powerful nation, its factories produced goods and materials used the world around, they controlled over 1/4 the world's population and their navy ruled the oceans. Then England embarked on a mission of free trade, we know the rest.

Simple fact is that Free Trade rarely benefits the more industrialized countries in the long run, in fact it just shifts the work and manufacturing to cheaper sources, and when you need to ramp up production to address military or political needs, you are at a lose.

The United Kingdom grew fat from goods produced by its colonies because it had the power to enforce its will on them, ensuring that the terms were always heavily in the UK's favor. World War II cost the UK its ability to dictate those terms, not so much by loss of projectable power as by loss of its aura of invulnerability and the sense of a divine order. If the non-white Japanese can beat the British, maybe we can too. If American is willing to fight for freedom for the French and the Filipinos, shouldn't we too have self determination? And you are correct; the net affect of having other nations manufacture its goods was to leave the empire unable to manufacture its own goods on an efficiency and of a quality comparable to the USA or to Germany.

Texashiker is correct about the national defense implications. We'd be hard-pressed to provide boots for another million servicemen, much less fuel and weapons and computers. Were we to get into another world war, we would be in exactly the position of World War II Germany or Japan, able to dominate completely in the early months but unable to compete long term. That's very scary for us, but it should be scary for the rest of the world too - we still have a pretty fair number of nuclear weapons.

 

[Genx87]

Isn't that a bit inconsistent? If it really benefited industrialized countries most people wouldn't dislike the consequences would they?

Sure it is inconsistent. But what else is new? You dont think the middle class has enjoyed the hell out of walmarts lowing the cost of goods by importing cheap goods from China, South Korea, and Vietnam? Think that same middle class will complain the jobs that created those goods left the country 10,20,30, or 40 years ago?

 

[Genx87]

Do you really think we've reached some sort of stable equilibrium? You don't think the trend is for more jobs and industries to go abroad? It seems that way to me. It started with low-skill manufacturing jobs, but it hasn't stopped there at all. Now we have office jobs going abroad which is why we're reaching a critical mass of disgruntled first-worlders. Even high end work like medical care and legal work is being done abroad now. There's absolutely no reason to think a lot more engineering can't be done abroad.

Of course it isnt stable. What makes you believe I would believe that? Or that is some kind of realistic goal?

Will other countries advance in the higher skilled jobs and we lose the ability to charge more than the market will bear for our labor? It is very likely within the next century. What do you propose we do about it?

 

[Texashiker]

Why cant our factories be retooled for war?

What factories do we have to be retooled? I wish I had a full day to go to parts of southeast Texas where welding shops and ship yards once stood, and take some pictures. We have manufacturing shops, but a fraction of what we had pre-1980s.

Where is the steel supposed to come from to build the retooling equipment?

The majority of our steel is made overseas. If/when those trade routes are cut off, what are we supposed to build tools out of, playdough?

 

[Infohawk]

You mean England lost its ability to enslave colonies to enrich the empire?

The United Kingdom grew fat from goods produced by its colonies because it had the power to enforce its will on them, ensuring that the terms were always heavily in the UK's favor.

I can't find the link but there are those that make good arguments that Britain really did not benefit that much from its colonies. British industrialization was fueled by coal, which it had in abundance. The things that came from the colonies were peculiarities like coffee, tea and spices. When you contrast this with the cost of keeping control over a place like India, it's not that obvious that Britain gained from its colonies. It became rich from its own manufacturing.

Germany is the best case study in that it barely had any colonies and did very well by industrializing itself. Conclusion: domestic industrialization not colonies made Europe (and America) rich.

 

[Genx87]

What factories do we have to be retooled? I wish I had a full day to go to parts of southeast Texas where welding shops and ship yards once stood, and take some pictures. We have manufacturing shops, but a fraction of what we had pre-1980s.

Where is the steel supposed to come from to build the retooling equipment?

The majority of our steel is made overseas. If/when those trade routes are cut off, what are we supposed to build tools out of, playdough?

We have a manufacturing sector that is about 2.3 Trillion dollars\year. We cant find a factory in that 2.3 trillion that will allow us to build a tank? Mine and create steel?

We were far less prepared for WWII and managed to retool and build factories enough to win the war in under 4 years.

 

[Arkaign]

What factories do we have to be retooled? I wish I had a full day to go to parts of southeast Texas where welding shops and ship yards once stood, and take some pictures. We have manufacturing shops, but a fraction of what we had pre-1980s.

Where is the steel supposed to come from to build the retooling equipment?

The majority of our steel is made overseas. If/when those trade routes are cut off, what are we supposed to build tools out of, playdough?

Yeah we're definitely boned at every level. Just training people how to make things would be a pretty big undertaking in itself, as more and more of our society either becomes permanent welfare or service-side jobs only (do you want fries with that?).

It's really a symptom of free trade, and the greed of big corp being short-sighted.

To greatly simplify it : yeah you can make more profit in the short term by killing domestic jobs and replacing them with cheaper overseas workers. But what happens when that becomes a national standard, and this repeated action causes the savings and economic livelihood of the average US citizen to decline to the point where they can't afford your company's widgets anymore?

 

[Arkaign]

We have a manufacturing sector that is about 2.3 Trillion dollars\year. We cant find a factory in that 2.3 trillion that will allow us to build a tank? Mine and create steel?

We were far less prepared for WWII and managed to retool and build factories enough to win the war in under 4 years.

Those numbers don't mean what you think they mean.

 

[Genx87]

I can't find the link but there are those that make good arguments that Britain really did not benefit that much from its colonies. British industrialization was fueled by coal, which it had in abundance. The things that came from the colonies were peculiarities like coffee, tea and spices. When you contrast this with the cost of keeping control over a place like India, it's not that obvious that Britain gained from its colonies. It became rich from its own manufacturing.

Germany is the best case study in that it barely had any colonies and did very well by industrializing itself. Conclusion: domestic industrialization not colonies made Europe (and America) rich.

If the british didnt get rich off the colonies and the wealth they produced. Why would they have held onto them for so long? Now it is certainly true at the end it may have ended up costing more than they could steal in wealth. But they also pulled back. In other words, the profit disappeared, so did the will to keep the colony.

Of course Germany and other countries did well industrializing, so did we. However there are stages within an economy. What you are seeing in countries like China is their industrialization that happened here 100-150 years ago.

 

[Genx87]

Those numbers don't mean what you think they mean.

They never do.

 

[Arkaign]

They never do.

I'm glad you have a sense of humor about it

Anyhow, there are positives to see, such as increased productivity due mainly to technology and supply-chain integration, but a lot of less good news considering the reliance on crucial foreign suppliers of many vital metals, chemicals, and other raw supplies to actually make anything.

I'd have to say that the last titanic high-water mark in US production is in food production, where we essentially kick ass like no other. One can definitely speak valid criticisms about the dark sides of this trend, but damn if it's not impressive.

Related :

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/business/13every.html?_r=2&ref=business

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Another way to view this is that economic interdependence decreases the risks of a shooting war because everyone needs everyone else. That's (mostly) a good thing.

 

[Infohawk]

Sure it is inconsistent. But what else is new? You dont think the middle class has enjoyed the hell out of walmarts lowing the cost of goods by importing cheap goods from China, South Korea, and Vietnam? Think that same middle class will complain the jobs that created those goods left the country 10,20,30, or 40 years ago?

It's not 100% good or bad, of course, but the mood of the country right now and looking at falling wages should tell you that the balance is negative at the moment. What good is ultra-cheap crappy goods if you don't have stable and solid wages?

Will other countries advance in the higher skilled jobs and we lose the ability to charge more than the market will bear for our labor? It is very likely within the next century. What do you propose we do about it?

I'm glad you brought that up because it brings us back to the subject of this thread: national security. (Let's leave aside the fact that I don't think the US population can handle that kind of creative destruction [increased poverty for most people] for such a prolonged period of time.) What do you think the world will look like militarily if we reach wage parity with a country like China? It will mean they are just as industrialized. With totalitarian leadership and a larger homogeneous population, they would dominate the world military, wouldn't they? At best a country like India (with a dangerously overcrowded country) might keep them in check. Why would you want that?

My position is that we start with tariffs on countries that have: undemocratic governments, pathetic labor and environmental laws, and even those with ridiculously low wages. In essence we'd have free trade with the developed countries. The English would buy our Fords and we would buy BMWs. Western manufacturing would increase. Goods would cost more but also pay higher wages which would eventually increase consumption.

Here's the relevant part to this thread: even if the West were a bit poorer on the whole than in a world with pure free trade (and honestly I don't believe it would be but I know that is the standard economic argument), we'd retain our comparative advantages over China and the other emerging third world countries. It will take China much longer to industrialize if it has to create its own consumption. And even then it will have to innovate by itself instead of ripping off Western partners.