Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Jack,
It is certainly true that manufacturing jobs are becoming a thing of the past. Your piece is very well presented.

I believe that the manufacturing jobs have been converted into distribution center jobs. Not all to be sure but a very large number.

Todays retailer, driven by customer demand wants his goods during certain time frames (in some consumer goods called “seasons”. Providing goods to retail stores has become a “just in time” practice. The retailer wants the supplier/Distribution Center to bear the cost and space of holding his inventory. All DC’s are now set up to do just that.

Moreover, end user product offerings now involve so many SKU’s (stockkeeping units) that warehouses must be set up to address a wide variety of orders. Order processing has become very labor intensive.

Inventories must be arranged in a very easilly interpreted and accessible way. Radio Frequency equipment is quite necessary to locate and identify this product. Depending on the product, it is likely to have come from overseas.

This presents a new set of activities. There must be at the very least a statistical quality control procedure requiring cartons to be openened and product verified against a strict set of specifications.

More than likely the product must have individual price and/or brand name tags attached. Asking the offshore supplier to do this is generally not successful for a wide variety of reasons.

Often the product(s) are received in the suppliers warehouse/DC in a different manner than the retailer wants it. This requires reworking.

Given the transfer of manufacturing jobs to warehouse jobs, technology in the warehouse is moving in the same direction as it did in manufacturing. Ultimately the same thing will happen.

Cute. Replace a long-term job that gives good benefits with a part-time job with no benefits at all.

Minimum Wage is the GOP Heaven indeed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/opinion/18krugman.html?hp

“For some reason, however, the public isn’t feeling prosperous. Gallup tells us that only 3 percent of Americans describe the economy as “excellent,” and only 33 percent describe it as “good.”“

“Economists who argue that there’s something wrong with the unemployment numbers are buzzing about a new study by Katharine Bradbury, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, which suggests that millions of Americans who should be in the labor force aren’t. “The addition of these hypothetical participants,” she writes, “would raise the unemployment rate by one to three-plus percentage points.”“

“Some background: the unemployment rate is only one of several numbers economists use to assess the jobs picture. When the economy is generating an abundance of jobs, economists expect to see strong growth in the payrolls reported by employers and in the number of people who say they have jobs, together with a rise in the length of the average workweek. They also expect to see wage gains well in excess of inflation, as employers compete to attract workers.

In fact, we see none of these things. As Berkeley’s J. Bradford DeLong writes on his influential economics blog, “We have four of five indicators telling us that the state of the job market is not that good and only one - the unemployment rate - reading green.”

In particular, even the most favorable measures show that employment growth has lagged well behind population growth over the past four years. Yet the measured unemployment rate isn’t much higher than it was in early 2001. How is that possible?

The answer, according to the survey used to estimate the unemployment rate, is a decline in labor force participation. Nonworking Americans aren’t considered unemployed unless they are actively looking for work, and hence counted as part of the labor force. And a large number of people have, for some reason, dropped out of the official labor force.”

Jack,

I agree with your article about the numbers and the economy, and how productivity of machines have reduced both factory and farm jobs.

I have to disagree somewhat that losing MFG. in America is no big deal.

If (God forbid) there were ever another major war, like WW2, where would we get all the MFG’d goods to fight a war?
Farm machinary breaks every day, without parts and machines we have no food.
Could we depend on foreign countrys supplying the things we need?
They may well not be on our side!
When the skilled MFG. knowledge base is gone, we cant crap out more in a few weeks or months.

I’m not trying to argue, its just something to think about?

Aldous wrote…..

“Cute. Replace a long-term job that gives good benefits with a part-time job with no benefits at all.

Minimum Wage is the GOP Heaven indeed.”

The above is an extremely disingenuous statement.These are not part time jobs and they pay on average three times what the present minimum wage is when you factor in fringe benefits.

Yes, Aldous

I am well aware of Krugman’s pessimism and the quality of his past predictions.

This is a good example of what I was talking about. Pundits explain why we are not well off. We believe that about the economy in general. But when asked about our own situations, something we know from our own experience, we know better.

There is an important change in the economy – more choice – and more choice means more responsibility. The golden age of factory work was not as much fun to experience as it is to remember. I recall as a young man considering the prospect of working all my life in a factory. Yes, the work was steady and there were benefits. But the price was thirty years at a mundane, dirty and unhealthy job that almost everyone hated. I used to throw 94 lb bags of Portland cement into trucks for twelve hours every day. We choked on the dust. We were exhausted all the time and at lunch time the bar across the street was full. Now that job that I did with a dozen colleagues, doesn’t exist. A machine stacks the bags and lowers them into a truck. What took us hours of backbreaking work is now done in minutes by a technician in an air-conditioned cab. This has happened all over the economy. I don’t want to go back. Krugman can tell me that I was better off, but my experiece is different.

Manufacturing jobs that are going overseas seemed to be turning China and Taiwan into economic powers.The service industry jobs in the U.S.don’t seem to be helping our economy at all.
The only positive is lower unemployment(Maybe it’s because anybody can get a low paying service job)

Jack,

I wouldn’t call throwing 94 pound bags of concrete onto a truck all day a “manufacturing job”. I would call it manual labor.

A manufacturing job IMO is one that requires “assembly” of a product or a component of a larger product either in an assembly line format or, at an individual workstation.

The point is that the jobs are not “going overseas”. The U.S. manufacturing base has actually grown since the 1990s. If we had not made gains in productivity, employment in manufacturing would be higher, but the country would be much poorer.

Think in the long term. Did we “export” jobs in agriculture? Jobs in the agricultural sector dropped like a stone. Where did those jobs go? Which country took them from us? Do you want them back?

The way to compete with countries like China and India is to increase our own productivity. We don’t want to compete by offering lower wages. I don’t think we can do that. We don’t want to compete by keeping U.S. prices artificially high. We do that a little already, but it is not a long term strategy.

The fact is that we can be better at maintaining our industrial base, but we cannot maintain industrial jobs at the same time. There is a direct tradeoff between productivity and jobs in any particular sector. Once again, take the agriculture example.

Jack,

Without the cement loading machine, wouldn’t you be back to loading cement by hand?

That machine was built in a MFG plant?
If our economy depends on the machines to do most of the work, don’t we need the the ability to MFG machines?
Just throwing away those types of jobs, is kinda like depending on oil imports?

I take your point. But my job was classified as industrial and now it’s gone (although it didn’t go to China)

Jack my friend,

I understand you points, I agree with them.

Those jobs have been lost to the productivty of machines. However, if we lose the ability to make machines, those jobs would be slaping us in the face again if we couldn’t buy them somewhere.

Without mfg plants, all the tech jobs would be writing with a lump of coal.
Pick any job you wish, medical,ag,computers,ect, they all depend on machines that must be built somewhere.

I’m not anti-trade,or isolationist, but we better maintain enough factorys to build the machines that our economy depends on.

The average joe can saw boards and hammer nails to build a house. How many can make the saw,hammer, and nails?

Beagle

The point is that our industrial base is not disappearing. It is just that fewer people work there. We still make a lot of the machines that make the machines, it is just that machines instead of men make them.

You are right about the world economy being more integrated and this does make us more vulnerable, but a more complex system is always more vulnerable than a simple one. It is also much more effective. Our big Euro competitor Airbus makes many of its engine parts in the U.S. Interestingly, the engines might cross the Atlantic several times as value is added. Does that make the French dependent on us or does it make us dependent on the French?

BTW – partly based on your inspiration, I bought 176 acres of forestland in Brunswick Co VA. The forest industry is a good example of progress. My little pine trees are genetically superior. They grow 30% faster than their ordinary cousins and they grow straighter with fewer branches and less susceptibility to pests, so they require less care, less fertilizer and almost zero pesticides. They can be grown on 35-year rotation with pulp at 15 and pulp and some saw timber at 25. Trees like this grown in our SE states provide 15.8% of the world’s timber production and 53% of America’s timber needs and we can grow even more. The point is because of plant breeding and improved techniques of processing (some of the thinned trees can now be processed into composites, for example) , we can produce twice as much wood in half the time and dispense with the services of thousands of unskilled workers who used to prune, cut and fertilize.

(Of course we both know that small landowners don’t go into forestry for the profits, but it is nice to break even and maybe make a little.)

Jack -

You’re right on in dismissing the CNN-based panic about manufacturing job loss. It is amazing the degree to which factory jobs have been romanticized.

However, there are economic issues the U.S. is facing, especially with the trade deficit. Our growing public and private debt could cause a crisis of confidence (and thus an economic crisis and collapse of the dollar) if it’s allowed to grow. We don’t know when this will happen, but in general, the first step to getting out of a hole is to stop digging.

I think that Jack touched a little on this earlier. The U.S. Has been moving toward outsourcing jobs to nations around the world for the past couple of years now. Businesses move basr from America to a third world country in order to save a nickle. This company takes money out of this country and puts it into another. Thus, taking money from the American worker. The U.S. Govt. encourages this and gives you breaks for doing it. Why? We want to move forward as a country and stay in the driver’s seat to control the world. What if world domination wasn’t the goal, what if unifying the world wasn’t the goal? What if taking care of the U.S. and our people’s interest was the goal? What if we made America self-sufficiant? America would rule the planet, America would be that evil loan-shark that reposses your car when you fall behind. Seriously, why don’t we take some collateral from these countries we “lend” all of this money to. We could own everything in no time at all. I mean thats what its all about money.

The economy looks good because companies are doing well and CEOs of companies are doing well. When did we get our taxes back again? Don’t you think that over the long tearm the american worker will suffer. What is the goal? To make everyone a desk jockey plugging meaningless information into a computer. We as a country need to move forward towards economic freedom. We have people affraid to go to the Dr. because of what it will cost and what they’ll get stuck with. We have the the “best economy in the world” But our people die everyday because they can’t afford to live. We are not the surgar daddy to the world. But for some reason we get treated like it.

Which would you prefer buying a product made in your hometown and you know is good or buying the same product from China that cost one tenth to make and, costs you less. Support the American or support the communist. Did you know that we have military members walking around in this country wearing hats that were made in China. I think it’s funny that there is an anti-drug commercial that says drug users support terrorism yet, American oil companies pour billions of dollars a year into third world African countries run by terrorists. Outsourcing great idea give the slime of the world more money and power.

Sorry about the tangent but, the overall picture is far greater that this minute success. As you can see in the unemployment rate charts the unemployment rates rise and fall and right now there is a rise then there will be a fall. Look at the previous years up down up down you know what that means? People keep on trying to do the same thing and that is inch along and react to the situation kinda like a boxer. Get hit hit back and hopfully make it out of the round. How long can we do this, how long can we react?

Jack,

If you spend much time in Brunswick County you can take advantage of the OTB establishment in Alberta for all your leisure needs.

Steve

I will check it out. I am only now getting to know my new area. I was pleasantly surprised to find a big lake just south of me. I guess I saw it on the map, but it didn’t register with me.

There is a mistaken presumption that manufacturing labor is cheap across the board in other countries. This is likely most true in the highly repetitive jobs we would see in the apparel (and a few other industries).

Several years ago I had the opportunity to visit several countries in Europe as part of a technology research team for my company. I can honestly say that I saw technology in a manufacturing environment that I had previously only dreamed about.

Further investigation revealed that companies are encouraged to develop and utilize equipment that eliminates or at least severely minimizes people. This encouragement comes from the respective government agencies of those countries. Government money is available for this purpose.

The cost of labor in many manufacturing facilities in Europe is very high. Also the fringe benefits/vacation-holiday time is as high as 6 to 8 weeks a year in many countries.

As well everything that is used in manufacturing has to be ergonomically designed. This is costly.

Jack,

There is Lake Gaston and Buggs Island Lake. Both are good for recreational activities and fishing.

Chad,

Some years back there was a nationwidee campaign to “Buy American”. There was a lot of enthusiasm for it, people were pumped. At the end of the day, it failed.

It failed for several reasons :(among those are)

a) People could not find American made products in the store

b) When you could find an American made product that you could compare to the foreign made, the foreign made was incredibly cheaper.

c) Many products made off shore were superior in quality to those made here

d) The economy took a downturn which left the buying choice obvious

Today, you are hard pressed to find high volume American made products anywhere.

Jack,

Thats great you bought some timberland!

You had mentioned that you always wanted to.
I dont thing you could possibly lose money on that.
By sugesting that “you go for it”, I felt the info I gave you was sound advice.

It sounds like you have done your homework on loblolly pine and I dont think its possible to lose money on the land.
Beyond that, you and your family walking on your own chunk of land, will be worth more that most will ever know(untill they have their own).
If you never did more than break even, nobody will ever take away the camping,togetherness,and good memories you’ll have.

Jack, the simple fact is, America and Americans are less prepared for the next economic shock than ever before. We are a massive debtor nation in every respect, leveraged to unbelievable levels. We are also far more dependent on international resources than ever before. Chad has a good point on this issue. And instead of investing in America, U.S. dollars are fleeing our nation like rats from a ship with the coming of the perfect storm.

Jack, you are absolutely correct. The Economic data at this moment in time is feeling good, but, we got here on the back of massive debt, and selling our debt to foreign investors. If the conditions that attracted foreign investment change, and foreign investors go elsewhere, we are in deep, deep trouble.

The key to keeping things good, is paying down the debt when good times come. And guess what, the good times, as you point out, have arrived. But, are we buying down our debt? No! We are not. And that is why your optimism about the future is missplaced.

steve smith,

“The cost of labor in many manufacturing facilities in Europe is very high. Also the fringe benefits/vacation-holiday time is as high as 6 to 8 weeks a year in many countries.”

Not to stick my thumb in your eye, but smoehow I don’t think that the jobs leaving the US are going to Europe.

Jack,

If we are losing these jobs, how are we going to employ all these illegals that we aren’t trying to stop at our borders?

Jack,
You are missing a basic point:

A low unemployment rate is not the same as job creation.

The work force participation numbers have already been mentioned. I’ll be the first to admit, that one’s a mystery. As I’ve said before, a heckuva lot of people have fallen off the radar.

The process of “creative destruction,” in which some industries fall by the wayside, while innovation leads to new ones, is simply not occurring.

Jobs are not being created. Any need for me to review non-farm payroll numbers for the Bush administration?

Part of the problem is technical innovation and its contribution to outsourcing.

As networks and servers improve, it requires fewer IT people to manage them. In addition, IT can be concentrated in one location, or even overseas. Same holds true for programming. In fact, improvements in technology make many American jobs a target for outsourcing.

We’re no longer talking about textiles or other types of manufacturing; we’re talking about outsourcing the cutting edge industries which gave us many of our economic advantages in the first place.

The key number is the non-farm payroll number. The key is job creation.

It ain’t happenin’.

While I agree that we need to keep manufacturing jobs in America, it is also a good thing that we have technology to do these jobs or a lot of time we couldn’t compete with the imported goods.
Take my company for example. We remanufacture auto alternators, starters, and generators. If I didn’t have the machinery to do this quickly and efficently I would have to triple my employees. This would almost triple my cost and I could not compete with other domestic rebuilders much less forign ones. Not to mention that I couldn’t pay my employees as much as I do.

Phx8

Governments don’t create jobs. They can only create conditions that create opportunities and these are long-term. The economic decline that was signaled by the bursting of the dot.com bubble began in March 2000 – almost a year before Bush took office. The effects were felt for the next couple of years. 9/11 has also been a drag on the economy. Each time you wait an extra hour at the airport multiply that by millions and figure the cost, and that is only the beginning.

The first Bush tax cuts did little to stimulate the economy, but those of 2003 have been effective. The deficit is still a problem, but this year it is 100 billion less than the estimates. That says something about estimates and the assumptions that go into them. Bush is creating the conditions for growth that are paying off now, but that will have their real payoff a decade from now.

You know that I don’t bash Clinton and I believe he did a good job as economic steward. But he was lucky to inherit an economy that was growing – fast – and he left an economy that was falling – fast. The economy of the 1990s grew for a variety of reasons, including radical restructuring the 1980s, the rapid decline of military expenditures, the integration of former Communist countries into the world system, low energy prices, the demographic surge of the baby boom hitting its peak earning years. The list goes on and they had little or nothing to do with the resident of the White House. These things reversed or the benefits ran out by 2001.

We like to think that presidents run the economic show and they like to let us believe it – when times are good. The fact is that they are only one of the players and sometimes as impotent in the face of big trends as you or me. And almost nothing they can do can have an impact in the short term. I am not certain about many things, but I am metaphysically certain that Bush was not in any significant respect responsible for the economy in 2000-2001. Not enough time. He was not much responsible for the economy of 2002. His policies began to have an effect in 2003 and if you start then, it looks pretty good. So what are those numbers for 2003-5?

On the other hand, Bush does need to rein in spending. That is what causes the deficit. If Bush had never spent more than Clinton planned to, then the budget office would be projecting a 10-year surplus of about $3.6 trillion, even assuming that all of the Bush tax cuts are made permanent. 9/11 spending is only part of the problem. There I do fault the Administration, but I am not sure a President Kerry or any other Dem would do better. Clinton was restrained by the Republican Congress. I also don’t think a Dem Congress would restrain spending.

Jack,
“On the other hand, Bush does need to rein in spending. That is what causes the deficit.”

That, and tax cuts during a time of war.

Here is a list of non-farm payroll by term:
Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Politicians and pundits frequently refer to the ability of the President of the United States to “create jobs” in the U.S. during his term in office. The numbers are most often seen during the election season or in regards to a President’s economic legacy. The numbers typically used and most frequently cited by economists are total nonfarm payroll employment numbers as collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on a monthly and annual basis.

Contents [hide]
1 Methodology
2 Controversy
3 Job creation by term
4 External links and references

[edit]
Methodology
The job numbers are collected via a survey of thousands of businesses. The sample establishments are drawn from private nonfarm businesses such as factories, offices, and stores, as well as federal, state, and local government entities. Employees on nonfarm payrolls are those who received pay for any part of the reference pay period (which includes the 12th of the month), including persons on paid leave.

As of 2005, the sample includes about 160,000 businesses and government agencies covering approximately 400,000 individual worksites. These job counts are monthly estimates based on data provided by employers (adjusted annually to a near census of total jobs provided by mandatory unemployment insurance filings) and also reflect those with multiple employers who are counted with each employer.

[edit]
Controversy
The exact usefulness of these numbers is debated. They only include nonfarm payroll employment, which excludes certain types of jobs, notably the self-employed. Additionally, for at least the first eight months of a President’s term, he inherits a budget proposed and implemented by his predecessor (as well as an overall economy which may be in decline or recovery). Furthermore, it is debatable as to how much effect any President realistically has on a system as large, diverse, and complex as the U.S. economy. Nevertheless, the nonfarm payrolls number is the one most frequently used in the media and by economists.

For information about the controversy surrounding the accuracy of this survey, see here.

[edit]
Job creation by term
Numbers listed here are measured from January of the year at the beginning of the term to the January four years later, when the term ends.

Term Start jobs End jobs created
Harry Truman D 1949-1953 44,675 50,145 +5.5
Dwight Eisenhower R 1953-1957 50,145 52,888 +2.7
Dwight Eisenhower R 1957-1961 52,888 53,683 +0.8
Kennedy/Johnson D 1961-1965 53,683 59,583 +5.9
Lyndon Johnson D 1965-1969 59,583 69,438 +9.9
Richard Nixon R 1969-1973 69,438 75,620 +6.2
Nixon/Ford R 1973-1977 75,620 80,692 +5.1
Jimmy Carter D 1977-1981 80,692 91,031 +10.3
Ronald Reagan R 1981-1985 91,031 96,353 +5.3
Ronald Reagan R 1985-1989 96,353 107,133 +10.8
George H. Bush R 1989-1993 107,133 109,725 +2.6
Bill Clinton D 1993-1997 109,725 121,232 +11.5
Bill Clinton D 1997-2001 121,232 132,454 +11.2
George W. Bush R 2001-2005 132,454 132,573 +0.12
George W. Bush R 2005- 132,573

Source: Wikipedia. Jobs created are in millions. Note the differences between Republican and Democrat administrations. Even Carter’s administration managed to create over 10 million jobs in four years.

“Private employment has decreased significantly under Bush according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. After private employment (seasonally adjusted) peaked at 111,680,000 in December 2000, it dropped to 108,250,000 in mid-2003. The 3.4 million jobs lost was the largest ever (since records begin in 1939), and the percentage drop was the largest since 1981-1983.”

Source: Wikipedia. In terms of downturns, the Bush recession ranked 7th out of the past 10 since WWII.

As bad as it felt, the Bush recession was relatively mild. However, job creation did not follow recovery. While the recession cannot be blamed on Bush alone, his administration’s policies can certainly take the credit- or in this case, the blame- for events since then.

“The employment level remained below the pre-Bush level until June 2005 when it reached 111,783,000 (preliminary). Considering population growth, that still represents a 4.6% decrease in employment.”

Source: wikipedia

This link details BLM statistics for seasonally adjusted non-farm payroll from 1995 to 2005.

Pardon the dry charts. It’s difficult to write about this stuff in an interesting manner, and decent sources are difficult to find.

There are other factors dragging on the economy, particularly the national debt & annual deficits.

An intangible drag on the economy is the atmosphere of fear cultivated after 9/11.

Another intangible drag is the practice of divisive politics. If you remember Lee Atwater, he pretty much left the smears and dirty politics at the door after the conclusion of a presidential campaign. A hallmark of Karl Rove’s approach is to continue… let’s just say ‘campaign politics’… even after the election. The point being, that approach puts an intangible drag on the economy. While 51% of the electorate might like it, the other 49% seem a tad displeased.

Suggesting the Bush economic policies of today will pay off in 10 years is speculation. Presidents & policies change. Taxes go up and down.

The current results of the tax cuts have failed to match administration goals for job creation.

Jack, when are you going to face your mythology?

You said: “Governments don’t create jobs.”

What do you call the work a Senator or their staff do? I call it a job.

What do you call the 100’s of thousands employed to create the Interstate Highway System? I call it government creating jobs.

What do you call the time put in by folks in the IRS Building. I call them jobs.

It is truly amazing how political brainwashing comes to be accepted unquestioningly as truth. The Governmnet does create jobs, and is one of the largest industry employers in the United States if you take local, state, and federal altogether.

And you base arguments on this false premise. Amazing!

Okay, David

I should say that government doesn’t create productive jobs. All government jobs have one thing in common: employees are paid by money the government gets from taxes and fees.

I am not anti government. I have written on many occasions that sound government is essential to the prosperity of a free economy. But we can’t confuse the components of a free economy. Government consumes the fruits of the private economy. It adds its own sort of value and good laws make the private economy work better. But the relationship remains one of producer and consumer.

Phx8

I don’t dispute the figures. I dispute the causes. First of all, I don’t believe the president’s policies are always the determining factor in job creation. The factors I mentioned (look above) in the 1990s were largely out of President Clinton’s (or any president’s) power.

Even if you think the president makes a determining difference, a particular president’s economic policy takes at least several months and maybe years to take effect and a president’s policies don’t immediately take effect on January 20. Things take time. For example, no reasonably economic policy Bush could have enacted in 2001 would have affected the economy in 2001. Add at least two years lag time to your figures. So the economy lived under a Reagan economy from about 1983-91. Bush I from about 1991-1995, Clinton 1995-2003 and Bush II from about 2003 to 2011 (projected).

Like many of us, Presidents get the praise or blame for what their predecessors did.

Jack,
Some policies may take more than a year to affect the economy. Some take a matter of months. For example, fiscal stimuli or brakes, i.e., tax cuts, can begin showing in months, bu the immediate stimulative effects dissipate within, say, a year.

The tax cuts put in place by Bush were skewed towards people more likely to invest. As a result, the stimulative effects on the economy were limited, in terms of increased spending.

Remember the velocity of money? You don’t hear much about that anymore, but it does come into play when targeting ways of jump starting the economy.

Agreed, the recession was not solely the fault of the Bush administration. However, decisions on fiscal policy directly affected the nature of the recovery, and job creation.

Decisions such as the choice to invade Iraq also affected the economy; even now, we’re spending @ $5 billion/month.

Decisions by Bush not to veto spending bills, or using the bully pulpit to talk down congressional spending also affected the economy.

It’s interesting, when you think about it; the decisions of a president affect the economy in a myriad of ways.

For example, this January Bush will nominate a replacement for Greenspan. I’d argue that decision will be more important than one Supreme Court nomination.

(And a brief digression- I think Bush will pull off a coup by pushing an acceptable nominee through in short order. With so much advance notice, it would be political ineptitude of the highest order not to do the deal long before an actual announcement is made… if no deal has been cut, & it isn’t ineptitude, it would be because the administration wants a fight as a distraction from Rove & the situation in Iraq… Why would the Dems want anything to detract from Rove? In short, a fight over the nomination would be a bad sign).

Is a president solely responsible for economic performance? Of course not. Is the president more responsible than any other individual, even in a time span of months? Yes.

Thank you, Jack. We are back in sync again. You and I don’t differ much on fiscal and economic issues, but, I had to check to see if you had taken a dive off the deep right end when you said Government does not create jobs. R&D federal dollars also create jobs, as do grants to states for everything from education to homeland security.

Just as you are not anti-gov’t., I am not anti-business or capitalism or enterprise. Where we disagree is how much of each is optimal for a given set of problems and conditions.

I insist that today, with a decent economy, we should be raising taxes and cutting spending so that we can lower taxes and raise spending in the future when the economy goes soft again. But, this Republican controlled government will have none of that. They want to play politics with the ‘good’ news that our deficit is ‘only’ going to be 1/3 of a trillion dollars instead of 2/5 or 1/2. And they refuse to add the 90 billion Soc. Sec. surplus which is being spent to that figure. Our actual deficit is 390 billion. So why won’t Republicans be honest with the people about this so we can take the measures necessary while times are good to save up for when they will go bad again?

We do have a boomer Tsunami which is going to hit us, afterall, and Soc. Sec. is the least of our problems. Medicaid is eating 4 to 5 times the resources as Soc. Sec. Where is the Republican action on reducing its costs? Non-existent! Where is there action to clamp down on the fraud by doctors, contractors, and criminals who are stealing as much as 20% of Medicaid dollars from both tax payers and recipients? Where is there beloved free enterprise in the Rx drug plan that should have mandated competitive bidding by pharmaceuticals for the Medicare Rx program?

It is starting to look like the Democrats are the more fiscally responsible party. They want pay as you go, not borrow as you go. They want an end to unfunded mandates to the states. They want competitive bidding for government contracts. The GOP has become the profligate waste and spend party… Republicans in Congress and the Whitehouse are completely out of control. They are still spending and lowering taxes as if we were in a recession. What is their major malfunction…?

Phx8

You said it yourself with Greenspan. He probably has more effect on the economy than the President. Only he can apply monetary stimulus or put on the brakes. Greenspan was in office during both Clinton and Bush. I am not a Clinton basher (I have often said that I think he did a good job), but I think that he (and any president) gets too much credit for the economy and there is no doubt, in any case, that the upturn started before he took office and the downturn started before he left. This is the best example I can think of an economic lag distorting public perceptions of presidential effectiveness.

I disagree about the first groups of tax cuts. They didn’t work as intended, but not because they were geared toward investment, but just the opposite. Especially the rebates were geared toward consumption. Their effects came on just in time to tide us over the trouble of 9/11, but were not long lasting. The second group of cuts have targeting growth and done a much better job.

David

Maybe the best is some kind of divided government. Clinton didn’t start doing well until chastised by the 1994 Republican tsunami. If you remember his first two years were terrible. Remember the “New Republic” article, “The Incredible Shrinking Presidency” followed after Clinton’s comeback by “The Incredible Growing Presidency”. The Republican dominance has made the Republicans arrogant and the Democrats irresponsible. There is less incentive to compromise on either side. But I don’t see much chance of this happening any time soon. Despite the happy rhetoric, the Dems have almost zero chance of retaking either the House or the Senate. The Presidential race in 2008 is anybody’s guess.

Re government – government creates the conditions for growth, but can’t manage the growth itself. I think we share an interest in forestry. A forester can plant trees and plan an overall layout, but the results of his work will be long off in the future and the trees will grow in their ways.

Manufacturing jobs or no manufacturing jobs, who gives a damn so long as people have jobs. Right?
What’s that? Unemployment went down not because people found jobs but because they stopped looking for jobs? Hmmm, I hope that means we’re going back to one working parent families.
Who cares that the kids don’t see the working parent because of the overtime and the part time jobs delivering papers at 4AM and fixing toilets at 10PM. Oh, and don’t forget the at home parent is busy trying to make money selling Grandma’s antiques on EBay. After all, nothings made in America anymore so people will pay extra for old things that were.
And what’s a trade deficit for anyway? Cheap TVs and DVDs and Wal Mart minimum wage+ jobs so the “owners” can make it big. What happens when the manufacturers have all our cash? Who’s going to buy those cheap goods? Maybe that’s why we have that huge budget deficit? So we can borrow money from the people we are paying for the cheap TVs so some plebes can have jobs at Wal Mart to pay just enough taxes so the “owners” don’t have to pay too much taxes and so that the manufacturing countries will keep buying our T bills with the money we gave them for the cheap DVDs so the Gov’t can spend $10B a month on a war we started so that some people can make more than minimum building bombs and armoured cars so ………

Face it, it doesn’t really matter which party is in charge and we can talk all we want but unless you’re in the top 1% or well prepared, your screwed. If we don’t make the stuff that other people buy and turn our deficits around, we’ll run out of money. End of Story.

Rocky,

The jobs that are going to Europe are in the equipment manufacturing arena. These are high tech and automated assembly jobs.

The jobs going to Asia, Middle East, Latin and South America are the more mundane, highly repetitive assembly jobs such as apparel, toys, electronics, etc.

phx8 — Very Well Done. I don’t know how you do it, but whenever you talk about economic policy, you somehow manage not to be boring — and I consider that no small achievement!

David and Dave — good points.

Steve Smith,
Funny how you dont mention India. It is surprising the jobs being outsourced there. Comp programming, research of all sorts, even tax preparation.

Tom G,

Not to mention quite a few customer service jobs.
Dell being one of them.

Jack,

I for one think that any American corporation that outsources jobs to other countries should pay tarrif to get their goods back into the country.
If for no other reason than to help pay to retrain the folks that have been left behind in the skills that are needed for the jobs that are left here, such as gardeners and fast food employees.

Tom G,

My bad Tom. I forgot about India. You are right, every time I call for help with my computer I get someone from India who tells me how to fix it and since I have almost no way of understanding him. I think that’s the way computer companies discourage people from asking questions.

rocky,

“I for one think that any American corporation that outsources jobs to other countries should pay tarrif to get their goods back into the country.”

You’re joking right?

Not a chance.

Who is going to pick up the slack?

American corporations don’t want to pay taxes, and don’t want to pay workers a decent salary.

Some where someone made the decision that the stockholders were more important than the product that makes the profit. Without competent workers there is no product.
By moving jobs offshore corporations are showing no loyalty to those that actually got them there.

Rocky:

Can you remember a time when the actual owners of the land, farmed it? I can actually remember buying American BUILT electronics and they were the best around. Companies like SAE, Bose, DBX, Soundcraftsmen, Carver Where did they go? I am still using the component stereo I put together when I first went in the Army…of all AMERICAN made products. Each piece different, designed to do one thing, Play music! I am sure that they are all still here in one capacity or another, but seeing assembled in Japan of American Parts, just does not cut it with me.

Waxing Nostalgic,
Wayne

Wayne,

How about Fischer, Marantz, Fairchild, Scott?

These were all American companies started by the men whose name they shared. Sol Marantz, Avery Fischer, etc…

All of these men are now gone, as are the companies.

Americans don’t appear to care about quality anymore. Price is everything.
The biggest complaint about WalMart is still that they force out the little mom and pop companies and sell crap that isn’t even made here.

Sure it’s cheap, but it’s still crap.

Rocky,

Americans don’t appear to care about quality anymore. Price is everything.

As long as they’re buying imported junk. If they buy American products, then they want the thing to last forever for the same price as the imported product.

The biggest complaint about WalMart is still that they force out the little mom and pop companies and sell crap that isn’t even made here.

Sure it’s cheap, but it’s still crap.

That’s why I don’t shop at Walmart.

No company stays in business selling things people dont want to buy.

Rich people dont shop at walmart, cant blame their success on them.
Go back 35-40 yrs. and most products you bought were made in USA by American workers.
The largest consumer group is middle income workers, the very same ones that used to make the products they used.
It stands to reason that the people that used to make the products stopped buying them?

Beagle,

WalMart has made it’s money selling cheap imitations of products that used to be made here. I personally don’t see the point of buying three of something that lasts one quarter as long as a product that is made well but costs three times as much.
Yes, I can afford to make those decisions, and that is why I don’t buy at WalMart. I have also seen WalMart move into an area and the small operations go away.
I don’t think that America is better served by huge corporations that are impersonal at best and predatory at worst.
Give me hardware stores that actually sell hardware (a pox on Home Depot), and smaller retailers that give knowledgable service in return for a slightly higher price.

Rocky,

Believe it or not, sometimes we agree.
The local hardware has everything I need. If they don’t have it they will get it within 2 days and beat anyones price. I have an open account there. I never signed anything and they didn’t even ask my name.
The owner seemed to know mine even though I didn’t know his.
He said pay the bill once a month and its no problem.
The local grocery store is the same way, plus they will deliver. Ditto for the meat market.
I seldom go to any big towns, they have nothing I need.

IMHO
Rocky, Ron Brown, Beagle et al.

We never agree on anything, why is it we don’t shop at “Wally World”, For the SAME exact reasons, HMMMMMM I wonder. Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that although, our core philosophies are different, we have the same goals in the end? WOW What a concept!!!

Just Passing Gas!

As Always,
Wayne

You know I was in grade school or Jr High when they oil shortage hit us back in 74’: What were the big 3 (GM, Ford, Chrysler) Shoving down our collective throats? Big cars, that were EPA disasters, all the while Toyota, Datsun (now Nissan) were steady developing economical cars, we were bringing out such memorable classics as: The Chrysler “K” Car, The Ford “Pinto”, and The Chevrolet “Vega”,(I brought the Pinto into this conversation, because Ford “KNOWINGLY” put that unsafe car on the road, and the Vega, well when was the last time you saw one? Is it any wonder why we developed “The Monster SUV that is so economical that it now gets what 2 gls to the Mile (GPM)?

Now we have large unsafe, uneconomical vehicles littering the Used car lots at your local Toyota, Honda, and Nissan dealers while their former owners mortgage their homes to get Their families into a car that not only looks good ,(The Hybrid Civic) and has a lot of Balls” Also. I didn’t mention they get great gas mileage as well.

Just Passing Gas,

As Always,
Wayne