Excellent and important commentary again, and your call is in urgent need of support by US policymakers.
Your “third way” and distinguishing between industries is an excellent way to make clear that not all things are equal, and that is an important starting point.
As I and my classmates were told early in our political science education: we would not get far in the field until we started to understand that one opinion is not necessarily as good as the next.
One industry or technology is not necessarily as important as the next; you are exactly correct. Nor is one economic policy as good for a nation’s long-term survival and security as the other. America for too long has been favoring a consumption-based economy, where a focus particularly on consumerism has prompted our economic planners and corporate sector to seek “victory” by finding a supplier that could provide the most for Americans to consume at the lowest possible per-unit cost. We found such a supplier in China, after flirting with the idea that Mexico could after entering NAFTA in the early 1990s.
Of course, there is more to China’s role as a supplier, as communist parties such as the one that rules China were built to find opponents’ weaknesses and exploit them, while giving us - as it said - the rope to which we could hang ourselves. Beijing has been more than happy to pursue a mercantilist economic policy by limiting consumption at home while aggressively ensuring US manufacturing moved from America to China, so the country could export anything and everything to the US. One only needs to look out China’s foreign exchange holdings and how they ballooned after China’s entry into the WTO in 2001.
Part of this belief in consumerism rested upon that American brands would also be the leaders. We didn’t learn the lessons of the automobile industry, when American buyers began to value less long-established brands such as Ford, GM, Chrysler and others and instead purchased new, foreign brands, such as Toyota and Honda. The nations that use to supply us moved up the value change, from OEM to ODM to finally OBM, and China has always had this goal, as well as the ability to transition in that direction.
Along with policymakers being prompted to understand the importance of industrial policy - another of your all-important recommendations - and the difference in importance of the various industries and technologies, US policymakers must also realize the debilitating effects of an economy that focuses on short-term consumption, the kinds of industries we support, our deficit, our both our trade policy and foreign policy, and, most importantly, our national security, given to whom we have ceded our productive, research and technological capabilities.
In addition to placing different weightings on the various industries and their importance to American’s manufacturing, innovation and security, it will be critical that US economic policy once again understands that there has to be a better balance between production and consumption being done in America. As you have argued well, not all industries will be needed to be brought back on shore; we don’t need to be making t-shirts and other labor-intensive goods. However, there are pitfalls with an economic model that focuses on consumption of so much being made offshore and less on savings, and we see it in our trade deficit.
Excellent and important commentary again, and your call is in urgent need of support by US policymakers.
Your “third way” and distinguishing between industries is an excellent way to make clear that not all things are equal, and that is an important starting point.
As I and my classmates were told early in our political science education: we would not get far in the field until we started to understand that one opinion is not necessarily as good as the next.
One industry or technology is not necessarily as important as the next; you are exactly correct. Nor is one economic policy as good for a nation’s long-term survival and security as the other. America for too long has been favoring a consumption-based economy, where a focus particularly on consumerism has prompted our economic planners and corporate sector to seek “victory” by finding a supplier that could provide the most for Americans to consume at the lowest possible per-unit cost. We found such a supplier in China, after flirting with the idea that Mexico could after entering NAFTA in the early 1990s.
Of course, there is more to China’s role as a supplier, as communist parties such as the one that rules China were built to find opponents’ weaknesses and exploit them, while giving us - as it said - the rope to which we could hang ourselves. Beijing has been more than happy to pursue a mercantilist economic policy by limiting consumption at home while aggressively ensuring US manufacturing moved from America to China, so the country could export anything and everything to the US. One only needs to look out China’s foreign exchange holdings and how they ballooned after China’s entry into the WTO in 2001.
Part of this belief in consumerism rested upon that American brands would also be the leaders. We didn’t learn the lessons of the automobile industry, when American buyers began to value less long-established brands such as Ford, GM, Chrysler and others and instead purchased new, foreign brands, such as Toyota and Honda. The nations that use to supply us moved up the value change, from OEM to ODM to finally OBM, and China has always had this goal, as well as the ability to transition in that direction.
Along with policymakers being prompted to understand the importance of industrial policy - another of your all-important recommendations - and the difference in importance of the various industries and technologies, US policymakers must also realize the debilitating effects of an economy that focuses on short-term consumption, the kinds of industries we support, our deficit, our both our trade policy and foreign policy, and, most importantly, our national security, given to whom we have ceded our productive, research and technological capabilities.
In addition to placing different weightings on the various industries and their importance to American’s manufacturing, innovation and security, it will be critical that US economic policy once again understands that there has to be a better balance between production and consumption being done in America. As you have argued well, not all industries will be needed to be brought back on shore; we don’t need to be making t-shirts and other labor-intensive goods. However, there are pitfalls with an economic model that focuses on consumption of so much being made offshore and less on savings, and we see it in our trade deficit.
Thanks again.