Hello There, Guest! Registered users see far less ads! Register today and join our virtual tailgate. (Login — Register)

Post Reply 
everything is made in China
Author Message
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 82,008
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3446
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #21
RE: everything is made in China
US used to be #1 business-friendly country in the world. We've dropped to #9 in the 2010 Forbes survey, and continue to drop. This is one symptom.

Look at who is ahead of us--three Scandinavian "socialist" states (Denmark #1, Sweden #7, Norway #8) and five former British colonies (Hong Kong #2, New Zealand #3, Canada #4, Singapore #5, and Ireland #6) with UK itself just behind at #10. They have in common small size (only Canada has as much as 1/10 the US population, and it only barely so). One other point--perhaps surprisingly, "socialist" countries tend to be more business-friendly in many more ways than we might imagine. A value-added tax is very business-friendly, for one thing. As my socialist European friends tell me frequently, "Socialism does not work without jobs, and you can't be pro-jobs without being pro-business." Look at the favor that the UK government did for BP regarding the Lockerbie bomber.

We need to become #1 again if our economy is going to return to its former robustness. If we keep dropping, we're just going to become more and more of a debtor nation.

Do we want to become China and win the race to the bottom? I don't think so. Instead of competing with China, pick places that are more like us and become competitive with them.

The 8 countries in front of us are all far more similar to us economically than they are to China (even Hong Kong, which is technically part of China now, but operates independently). You can hiss and moan about "greedy corporations" all you want, but at the end of the day, if you want jobs you better be nice to business.
09-08-2011 10:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,215
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 126
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #22
RE: everything is made in China
(09-08-2011 09:06 AM)JSA Wrote:  P J O'Rourke explains the Law of Comparative Advantage:

http://www.espen.com/archives/2004/11/ri...plain.html

Awesome!
09-08-2011 01:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JOwl Offline
sum guy

Posts: 2,694
Joined: Jun 2005
I Root For: Rice
Location: Hell's Kitchen

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #23
RE: everything is made in China
(09-08-2011 01:18 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(09-08-2011 09:06 AM)JSA Wrote:  P J O'Rourke explains the Law of Comparative Advantage:

http://www.espen.com/archives/2004/11/ri...plain.html

Awesome!

Really?

It actually strikes me as pretty weak. I'm not sure it's even illustrating comparative advantage.

By constructing a universe consisting of two goods that are perfect substitutes, it obscures a key point. In the example, the optimal solution is all novels for Grisham and all songs for Love -- regardless of what the other person produces. Why would Grisham even consider devoting 50% of his time to songs (as the example suggests) when he's much better at novels and there's no difference in utility between the two? At the end of the day, they're both just producing BS units -- why would he ever work at less than full capacity?

A true illustration of comparative advantage would use two goods that aren't substitutes, and would rely on the diminishing marginal utility of each.

That is, it would describe a society who (if it only had access to Grisham) would have its utility maximized at, say, 90 novels and 5 songs [i.e. the society could have 10 more novels at the cost of only 5 song, but since they already have 90 the extra 10 are less valuable to them than 5 songs; however they don't want to give up 10 novels to get another 5 songs].

The same society may have Love (if she were in a vacuum) do 1 thriller, because they value it more than 5 songs.

So if each were maximized independently, that would yield 91 thrillers and 5 songs. And therein is the beauty of trade and the power of comparative advantage -- if you maximize their output as a whole, you can have 100 thrilles (100% of Grisham) and 5 songs (100% of Love), which is clearly better than 91 thrillers and 5 songs.

In O'Rourke's (admittedly much simpler) example, you get 100 & 5 regardless of whether your maximizing independently or collectively. All that illustrates is that it's dumb to work at less than full capacity.
09-08-2011 05:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JOwl Offline
sum guy

Posts: 2,694
Joined: Jun 2005
I Root For: Rice
Location: Hell's Kitchen

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #24
RE: everything is made in China
And, of course, O'Rourke's structure (two perfect substitutes with apparently constant marginal utility) could never illustrate the even subtler (and more intersting) case of comparative advantage:
Imagine that both Love AND Grisham were better at writing novels (e.g. Grisham unchanged but Love could produce either 5 songs or 10 novels). Accounting for diminishing marginal utility, it may _still_ be the case that comparative advantage would drive Love to produce 5 songs and zero novels, even though she's better at novels. The key point being that Grisham is _more_ better at novels than songs than Love is better at novels than songs. O'Rourke's structure could never give that result.
(This post was last modified: 09-08-2011 06:02 PM by JOwl.)
09-08-2011 06:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
emmiesix Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 639
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 44
I Root For: RICE
Location: Houston, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #25
RE: everything is made in China
Interesting comments from everyone, I hope to find time later to respond to a few. But here is an interesting article. Sadly, I wish they had more numbers in them to get an idea of the scale (total number of companies doesn't say much):

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-an...-time/117/


Is there anything more ubiquitous than the t-shirt? I’d challenge you to find one person in the country who doesn’t own one. So you know what’s weird? There are almost no companies in the U.S. that make them—American Apparel being the most well-known exception. This most common of consumer products, worn by individuals at every stop along the economic spectrum, is for the most part an import.

Except in San Francisco. Already home to dozens of enterprising screen printers, the recent emergence of a local t-shirt manufacturer here seems obvious in hindsight. But it took people like Kate Sofis, Executive Director of SFMade, to help make it happen.

A non-profit formed in 2010 as a sort of alt version of the Chamber of Commerce, SF Made brings an expanding number of local manufacturers, from jewelers to brewers to custom corset-makers together as a community. The organization, which charges no fees, provides its membership of nearly 200 individuals and companies, with resources and assistance on everything from supply chain analysis to lease negotiations. SF Made’s success over the last year has demonstrated that the future of manufacturing may lie less with reviving monolithic industries (i.e., auto, steel), and more in stepping back to see what other things we can—and should—be making domestically, creating jobs and eliminating import costs in the process. “We’re not going to bring every low cost item back,” Sofis explains. “A disposable bubble blowing toy that sells at 10 for $1, we won’t be making that here anytime soon. But there’s a lot more room for commonplace items to be manufactured. Somewhere between $10/lb. coffee and $10 for a dozen bubble blowers, there’s a lot. People are getting really excited about that. “

There’s no shortage of naysayers who see “cottage industry” and not “economic engine.” But, as Sofis explains, “This is not about coffee, chocolate and beer. I do think that often you find the sector starts with some of that stuff because it’s easier to figure out. But what’s trying to happen is that once people realize they can make things here they start to explore where the niches are, where’s there’s a demand for a basic product.”

By embracing incremental shifts in the manufacturing paradigm, SF Made has not only more than doubled the number of its member companies since its founding in 2010, it has inspired cities nationwide to take another look at their own manufacturing potential. And San Francisco is now seen as the model for major urban centers across the U.S. In July, SF Made and its New York partner launched the Urban Manufacturing Alliance in partnership with the Clinton Initiative. The goal is to take their model to other cities interested in re-stimulating their local manufacturing sectors.

It wasn’t hard to convince anyone, as Sofis explains. “Cities have been thinking about it and now see that SF Made has the right model.” Beginning with New York, San Francisco, and three other cities, the UMA is seeking funding partners for research on best practices, and plans to partner with Salesforce.com on the creation of a supply chain database. The efforts of SF Made and its regional equivalents have turned into something that stands a real chance to affect economic growth. And in the process, we’re seeing a reinvention of conventional ideas about what manufacturing is and what jobs come with it.
09-19-2011 07:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
shere khan Offline
Southerner
*

Posts: 76,622
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 10820
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Russia
Post: #26
RE: everything is made in China
Rice complaining about China, wow. Proof anything is possible.
10-07-2011 05:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
75src Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,623
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 25
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #27
RE: everything is made in China
The whole idea was ridiculous. The give the black beret to everyone when in the past only Rangers earned them so then the Rangers switched to tan berets.

(09-06-2011 09:29 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  In 2001 the US Army modified their uniforms and switched to Black Berets as standard headwear for their "daily" non combat uniform. The Pentagon issued contracts for 150,000 berets with Chinese firms.

After loud protest, the Chinese contracts were nixed and re-issued to American companies.

Sometimes the notion of "lowest bidder wins" shouldn't be applied.
10-07-2011 08:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2026 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2026 MyBB Group.