A strong manufacturing base and national security

[Texashiker]

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

I think we are far less prepared today, then we were in 1941.

In 1941, the majority of the people were used to doing physical labor.

Today, obesity has reached epidemic levels, and the majority of kids do not lift anything heavier then a cheeseburger, 32 ounce coke and an x-box controller.

manufacturing sector that is about 2.3 Trillion dollars\year.

That might seem like a lot, but when you start talking about ships and drilling rigs costing hundreds of millions, that 2.3 trillion breaks down rather fast.

http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.c...Management/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=62087

For $200 million to almost $1 billion, one can build a new oil-drilling platform

The biggest problem is steel production. The majority of the steel we use is imported. We have to have steel to build tools.

How are we supposed to build a bulldozer to mine ore, when we do not have steel to build the equipment.

I guess its like a chicken and egg effect.

 

[Infohawk]

If the british didnt get rich off the colonies and the wealth they produced. Why would they have held onto them for so long?

Nationalism for one. I know you're not suggesting that because a policy is kept around for a long time it must be beneficial.

 

[Genx87]

I think we are far less prepared today, then we were in 1941.

In 1941, the majority of the people were used to doing physical labor.

Today, obesity has reached epidemic levels, and the majority of kids do not lift anything heavier then a cheeseburger, 32 ounce coke and an x-box controller.

And what does that have to do with being able to output a tank? Are you telling me because we have become a nation of lazy slobs eating fast food we wont build a tank when a major war continues? And if we refuse to build such a tank dont we get what we deserve?

When I mentioned prepared. I am discussing our ability to wage war. We were nearly incapable of waging war in 1941. Within 4 years our economy won the war.

That might seem like a lot, but when you start talking about ships and drilling rigs costing hundreds of millions, that 2.3 trillion breaks down rather fast

http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.c...Management/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=62087

It wont grow to accomodate the increased demand of heavy goods(tanks, planes, ships, trucks)?

The biggest problem is steel production. The majority of the steel we use is imported. We have to have steel to build tools.

I will be the first to say we didnt properly address the flooding of our markets of cheap korean steel in the 1990s. However the metals are still in our control. If needed we can ramp production.

 

[werepossum]

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.

The UK's manufacturing had by World War II largely devolved into outdated machinery making goods to sell its colonies; better quality goods were imported into the UK from places like Germany or America or Czechoslovakia. There's quite a lot of literature about Britain's struggle in the early years to produce modern weaponry; their weapons were almost uniformly crap because their machinery was largely simply not capable of modern, tight tolerances. Their anti-tank weapons for instance; the 17 pounder (as fitted to the Sherman to make the Firefly) was even better than the long 75mm (forget the designation) on the German Panther, especially with its revolutionary sabot ammunition. But the vast majority of Britain's heavy machinery was simply not capable of turning out a cannon of that performance, which demands very tight machining and very strong and uniform steel. Consequently most British tanks were equipped with the crap American 75mm cannon or with equally bad loose, relatively low pressure British cannon. Many British tanks were still being made at war's end with segmented and even riveted hulls; even though the Brits had long known the benefits of large castings and the dangers of riveted construction, they simply didn't have the foundries and heavy welding expertise and equipment to produce modern tanks in quantity. The Brits had many factories capable of turning out stamped shit like Sterlings in large numbers, but damned few that could turn out a Thompson or a Garand.

We're in much the same shape today. We would find it impossible to turn out large numbers of tanks or ships; we just don't have the heavy industry to do it. We could wire a ship and build most of its furnishings, but we can't turn out a lot of ICs for weapons grade hardware, and we can't quickly ramp up production in heavy steel plate forming and welding. Things like that require very specialized factories, equipment and expertise.

 

[Ausm]

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.

That's back when the Government wasn't afraid to invest in those resources Oh kind OT but this is a perfect example on how we spent our way out of the Depression sorry if I gave any Conservative out there a Coronary

 

[Texashiker]

However the metals are still in our control. If needed we can ramp production.

Ramp up steel production with factories that no longer exist?

 

[orbster556]

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

Not only do I disagree with your assessment of free trade but, unfortunately, I also think your view of British history is slightly lacking. Specifically, England abolished the Corn Laws in the mid-19th century which, on the whole, was a move away from mercantilism and towards free trade. Shortly after abrogating the Corn Laws, Britain also liberalized trade in the manufacturing sector of its economy despite it possessing technological superiority over the rest of the Continent.

The English Empire collapsed because of the devastating effect that two world wars had on its population, changing societal views vis-a-vis the permissibility of colonialism and its inability or unwillingness to bear the cost of administering a vast colonial empire. In truth, when one considers the duration and extent of the English empire, its most interesting aspect -- to me at least -- is not its collapse but rather its existence, viz. it is fascinating that a relatively small island nation was able to exert dominion over vast swathes of the world for such an extended period of time.

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

Although certainly free trade permits/encourages certain sorts of work to be shifted to cheaper sources, this is an incomplete description. Free trade encourages greater efficiency, viz. jobs that requires less skill/productivity are shipped out to lower skilled or less productive nations which, in turn, leaves higher skilled/more productive workers in other nations (typically the advanced nations) to pursue more valuable economic endeavors.

Throughout history, the periods in which the lot of the ordinary working person was most greatly enhanced was when the government under which those people were living adopted some combination of free markets and free trade. This is as true for America as it is for the rest of Europe and really the rest of the world.

 

[Ausm]

Ramp up steel production with factories that no longer exist?

We have been getting all our High grade Tool Steel from Germany and Japan. The Steel that comes from China is bad it's almost a joke to work with especially when it comes to high speed machining and heat treating.

 

[Texashiker]

Free trade encourages greater efficiency, viz. jobs that requires less skill/productivity are shipped out to lower skilled or less productive nations which, in turn, leaves higher skilled/more productive workers in other nations (typically the advanced nations) to pursue more valuable economic endeavors.

I disagree with that statement.

"Who" determines what jobs are low skilled and should be shipped off shore?

What do you consider "more valuable economic endeavors"? I know welders that worked on off-shore drilling rigs and made 100k a year. "Who" gets to determine whether a job is a "valuable economic endeavor"?

One mans trash is another mans treasure.

Not everyone is cut out to sit in a classroom for 14, 16 or 18 years of their life. There are people out there that would rather work on a motor then a computer. Are mechanics considered less valuable then computer techs?

 

[Infohawk]

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.

This is probably the best argument for trade. I think in the long run, we do want free trade between all countries and as much interdependence for that precise reason (although there are counterbalancing environmental consequences of transporting goods around).

The problem is that you cannot trust China even with economic interdependence. They are still a totalitarian regime. And we just have to look at the US foreign policy to see that there's usually a big dog who gets its way and pressures other countries. People bitch and moan about the US even though the US has a huge civil society to limit its foreign policy. Imagine how bad it would be if totalitarian China had its way.

 

[Infohawk]

The UK's manufacturing had by World War II largely devolved into outdated machinery making goods to sell its colonies...

Not sure why you quoted me. Doesn't seem like it has to do with my specific point about the cost of colonies. I'm not arguing with your other points.

 

[orbster556]

this is a perfect example on how we spent our way out of the Depression sorry if I gave any Conservative out there a Coronary

Anyone who suggests that government shouldn't spend any money or shouldn't do anything ought not to be taken seriously. Indeed, even Friedman recognized that there were certain tasks for which government was particularly well-suited and, in those fields, government activity and expenditures ought to be welcomed. Certainly, national security is a field in which government is better situated, vis-a-vis private actors, to act and achieve optimal outcomes.

As to your broader point of government being able to 'spend our way out of the Depression' it should be noted that WWII was an external stimulus largely out of the control of the American government. By contrast, the measures that the Roosevelt administration adopted to stimulate demand -- including billions in government spending and wholesale government intervention in the economy through promulgation of new regulations -- were, by and large, inefficacious. Specifically, the American economy did not get back to 1929 levels during Roosevelt's first two terms (i.e., before American involvement in WWII). Specifically, the Dow Jones didn't return to its pre-crash levels, total hours worked by the American labor force was 20% lower in 1939 than in 1929 and unemployment rarely dipped into single-digits before the outbreak of WWII.

 

[Genx87]

Ramp up steel production with factories that no longer exist?

Are you under some impression we have no steel output in this country? We are #3-4 in output on a world scale.

 

[Spikesoldier]

IMO this was part of the reason why the govt bailed out and nationalized GM, on the basis that GM made a lot of tanks etc ~WWII.

if we got into a situation where we needed to defend our nation, having no manufacturing sector would leave us to mutually assured destruction.

 

[jstern01]

Not only do I disagree with your assessment of free trade but, unfortunately, I also think your view of British history is slightly lacking. Specifically, England abolished the Corn Laws in the mid-19th century which, on the whole, was a move away from mercantilism and towards free trade. Shortly after abrogating the Corn Laws, Britain also liberalized trade in the manufacturing sector of its economy despite it possessing technological superiority over the rest of the Continent.

The English Empire collapsed because of the devastating effect that two world wars had on its population, changing societal views vis-a-vis the permissibility of colonialism and its inability or unwillingness to bear the cost of administering a vast colonial empire. In truth, when one considers the duration and extent of the English empire, its most interesting aspect -- to me at least -- is not its collapse but rather its existence, viz. it is fascinating that a relatively small island nation was able to exert dominion over vast swathes of the world for such an extended period of time.



Although certainly free trade permits/encourages certain sorts of work to be shifted to cheaper sources, this is an incomplete description. Free trade encourages greater efficiency, viz. jobs that requires less skill/productivity are shipped out to lower skilled or less productive nations which, in turn, leaves higher skilled/more productive workers in other nations (typically the advanced nations) to pursue more valuable economic endeavors.

Throughout history, the periods in which the lot of the ordinary working person was most greatly enhanced was when the government under which those people were living adopted some combination of free markets and free trade. This is as true for America as it is for the rest of Europe and really the rest of the world.

Here is a good read about British Empire and its decline which appears to have started decades before the first world war.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ipe/gallagher.htm

 

[orbster556]

"Who" determines what jobs are low skilled and should be shipped off shore?

The market. If some product can be produced more efficiently off-shore then its manufacture will be moved off-shore. This is actually the reason that the majority of US car -- even those produced by foreign auto firms -- are built and assembled in the US, viz. it is quite expensive to ship assembled cars overseas and thus it doesn't make sense to have them built overseas.

What do you consider "more valuable economic endeavors"? I know welders that worked on off-shore drilling rigs and made 100k a year.

Also, I apologize if you thought I was using 'valuable' in a normative sense as that was not my intention. Rather, I was using it interchangeably with increased efficiency.

Not everyone is cut out to sit in a classroom for 14, 16 or 18 years of their life. There are people out there that would rather work on a motor then a computer. Are mechanics considered less valuable then computer techs?

Fair point. Even if it were possible to obtain a global system of trade free from an inefficiencies or restrictions, there would always be a need for local services, viz. there are always jobs that can't be re-assigned because of the nature of the work. Mechanics would certainly qualify as such a service.

 

[woolfe9999]

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.

We spend as much on our military as the rest of the planet does, so I doubt we'd have any trouble going the distance. But in reality, the better point is that if there is another world war, God help us all. I'm not so sure we really need much more military than is necessary to defend our borders, and given our natural defenses, that is a small fraction of what we have now. If we're talking about building a military to prepare for a widespread global conflict, then we're all dead anyway. There are good reasons there hasn't been a global war since the 1940's despite all the tensions and hostilities during the cold war. WWII was much worse than WWI, and I think everyone knows what to expect for WWIII. Preparing for WWIII is madness.



- wolf

 

[jstern01]

The market. If some product can be produced more efficiently off-shore then its manufacture will be moved off-shore. This is actually the reason that the majority of US car -- even those produced by foreign auto firms -- are built and assembled in the US, viz. it is quite expensive to ship assembled cars overseas and thus it doesn't make sense to have them built overseas.



Also, I apologize if you thought I was using 'valuable' in a normative sense as that was not my intention. Rather, I was using it interchangeably with increased efficiency.



Fair point. Even if it were possible to obtain a global system of trade free from an inefficiencies or restrictions, there would always be a need for local services, viz. there are always jobs that can't be re-assigned because of the nature of the work. Mechanics would certainly qualify as such a service.

This part of the discussion reminds me of something that happen and was kinda of blown off.

Back in 1993, while I was working for Westinghouse Electric, Power Generation Division. Their last engineer who was skilled at rasping retired. Now you might think so what. But consider this. Most of the power plants in operation in the US are unique in that there is no standardization in the construction of the turbines that generate power. Oh sure they are may say that series X will produced Y megawatts, but the blades that make up the turbines are cast individually, thus unique. Now the job of a rasper is to shave off small amounts of steel from the blades once they are mounted. This is how they balance turbines to minimize vibration that leads to blade salad. The skill of this person was that he could just by listening to the blades turning almost magically tell which blade in which row need to be rasped. That person, that individual retiring signified the beginning of the end of one of America's great manufacturing company's Westinghouse Electric.

 

[orbster556]

Here is a good read about British Empire and its decline which appears to have started decades before the first world war.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ipe/gallagher.htm

My apologies if my comprehension is failing me, but I cannot find any support for the proposition that the British Empire was failing long before WWI. Indeed, the authors are arguing that the British Empire was as strong during the years when the British government was most receptive to free trade (1840~1860) as it was during the expansionist period that occurred at the end of the Victorian period (1880)(this was the period Lenin labelled as economic imperialism). Moreover, several times throughout the article the authors identify the end of the 19th century (post-1880) as a period in which the British Empire underwent significant expansion. Indeed, the purpose of the article is to demonstrate that the late-Victorian expansion was consistent with the British administration of the colonies in earlier periods (1840-1860) even though free trade was a more powerful force in the earlier period.

I tried finding the most succinct quote from the linked article that would support the above:

"To sum up: the conventional view of Victorian imperial history leaves us with a series of awkward questions. In the age of 'anti-imperialism' why were all colonies retained? Why were so many more obtained? Why were so many new spheres of influence set up? Or again, in the age of' 'imperialism', as we shall see later, why was there such reluctancr to annex further territory? Why did decentralization, begun under the impetus of anti-imperialism, continue? In the age of laissez-faire why was the Indian economy developed by the state?"

 

[werepossum]

Not sure why you quoted me. Doesn't seem like it has to do with my specific point about the cost of colonies. I'm not arguing with your other points.

It's two sides of the same coin. The British Empire had to a large extent a captive market in its colonies, in that it directly controlled what the colonies could and could not import. Even huge India was limited by the British Empire's desires and needs. The wealth the UK reaped from the manufactures it sold to its colonies allowed it to purchase better quality foreign imports for its wealthy, which combined with its captive markets (including its own poor) allowed its manufacturing base to become obsolete largely without much apparent cost. That is, the British Empire's industrial base was in decline long before World War II, but its colonies allowed its citizens to ignore this, except for the very poor.

The United States has the flip side of that coin. We voluntarily ended our prohibition on the transfer of cutting edge technology to third world and Communist countries. In doing so we made our corporations profitable in a way they hadn't been since the end of Word War II, when we were the only major nation with an appreciable industrial base and little infrastructure that had to be repaired or replaced. But the cost was our industrial base, which has rapidly eroded as companies seek out, are driven to, or are bankrupted by their competitors' use of cheap and energetic foreign labor. We've been able so far to largely ignore the effects on the populace by borrowing huge sums of money to continue consuming even more wealth while creating less of it, but that's about played out now. Here too we've mirrored the British Empire with the wealthy resource owners becoming far wealthier (except by importing and reselling domestically utilizing cheaper foreign labor rather than by selling to captive colonial markets), the very poor taking it in the shorts, and the average Joe getting a little squeezed but not so quickly or so violently that he really notices a big change.

While in the British Empire the Average Joe saw his standard of living slow to a very small increase if not a decline, in America this is represented chiefly by the Average Joe losing his well-paying manufacturing or entrepreneurial small business owner retail job and replacing it with a low-paying retail sales job whilst government has been rapidly acquiring a lot of debt he'll have to pay off. Joe still gets a new iPhone and a new television, he just finances them now. In both cases the effect is the same - the nation has willfully gone from an industrial base capable of supplying most of its needs to an industrial base not capable of supplying most of its needs.

 

[werepossum]

We spend as much on our military as the rest of the planet does, so I doubt we'd have any trouble going the distance. But in reality, the better point is that if there is another world war, God help us all. I'm not so sure we really need much more military than is necessary to defend our borders, and given our natural defenses, that is a small fraction of what we have now. If we're talking about building a military to prepare for a widespread global conflict, then we're all dead anyway. There are good reasons there hasn't been a global war since the 1940's despite all the tensions and hostilities during the cold war. WWII was much worse than WWI, and I think everyone knows what to expect for WWIII. Preparing for WWIII is madness.



- wolf

That is a good point, but that's exactly what was said after the Great War - war is now so terrible that there will never be another war like this one. Barely a decade later there was one much, much worse to civilians on both sides. If G-d forbid we have a third, I fully expect it to be even worse to civilians, even though we've developed a strong aversion to harming civilians.

The purpose of preparing for World War III is to avoid having one. If significant parts of the world can be captured on the cheap, there's a lot of incentive to do so. If it's apparent that the cost of that capture will likely be far greater than any benefits within a reasonable time frame, that's a powerful disincentive to wage war on a large scale.

 

[Infohawk]

Preparing for WWIII is madness.

- wolf

Not in the long term. I don't think there are many limits to human ingenuity given time. Eventually current ICBM technology will be able to be neutralized. If one side has that and the other doesn't someone's going to be in trouble.

 

[soulcougher73]

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.

Just wait till we off-shore our government to China or the next lowest bidder. That will be sweet Their is no end to off-shoring of jobs to third world countries. Unfortunately we need low paying minial jobs for the masses.

 

[woolfe9999]

That is a good point, but that's exactly what was said after the Great War - war is now so terrible that there will never be another war like this one. Barely a decade later there was one much, much worse to civilians on both sides. If G-d forbid we have a third, I fully expect it to be even worse to civilians, even though we've developed a strong aversion to harming civilians.

The purpose of preparing for World War III is to avoid having one. If significant parts of the world can be captured on the cheap, there's a lot of incentive to do so. If it's apparent that the cost of that capture will likely be far greater than any benefits within a reasonable time frame, that's a powerful disincentive to wage war on a large scale.

I understand your bolded point, but relating it to the OP, I don't see that increasing the manufacturing base is needed for deterrent purposes. Heck, our nuclear arsenal alone is more than enough for that. The nukes are the main reason I don't see another WW happening again. The bigger threat is probably a terrorist group getting its hands on one.

 

[woolfe9999]

Not in the long term. I don't think there are many limits to human ingenuity given time. Eventually current ICBM technology will be able to be neutralized. If one side has that and the other doesn't someone's going to be in trouble.

I can't see how we need a large manufacturing base to keep up on those kinds of tech advances. The OP's point was that in an emergency, we couldn't produce enough tanks/planes/ships/ordinance. Yet I seriously doubt we'll see a globe wide conventional conflict ever again. The threat of nukes is too dangerous.