Probably.

But then again, I forsee us fighting several countries in the next 20-30 years.

We're all going to die anyway.

oldsoldier wrote: We are already at "war" with China, and losing. The first step in any war is to disrupt the enemies logistics and economy and ability to wage war. Most of our heavy and medium industrial goods as well as consumer items come from China. Disrupt the flow of these good, or just plan stop them, and our economy as well as civilian moral hits bottom.

Isolationist much?

What you call "war", the rest of us call "commerce".  And with the excellent economic cooperation between the US and China we have had over the past few decades, we are both winning.

Economics is not a zero-sum game.  This is why outsourcing is good.  It benefits both parties by reducing inefficiencies.

OS:

1.  Based on what do you declare China an "enemy" to which we have to apply principles of war?  What you are advocating is EXACTLY what the USSR did, and exactly what led to their downfall.  Yes, we shouldn't go helping our enemies more than necessary, but that doesn't mean that we should run around declaring everybody an enemy.  We are not at war with China.  Nor is there any particular reason to believe that we will be at war with China in the foreseeable future.  We.are.not.at.war.  Using war strategy indiscriminately in every scenario is just wrong.

2.  Furthering economic relations with China further reduces the already low likelihood of war with China.  China's economy is as intermingled with ours as ours is with them.  If they were (for whatever reason) thinking of going to war with us, those economic entanglements would make them think twice.  And entanglements aside, there are real benefits to our relationship.  Capitalism is good.  Good for us, good for them.  Declaring war on the US would mean losing most of those economic benefits.

3.  On outsourcing - you are a couple of decades behind schedule.  The industrial workforce was fully outsourced a long time ago.  The real outsourcing going on now is in completely different areas.  As to what will happen when we are "completely outsourced?"  Efficiency.  Companies outsource jobs not because they hate America, but because it is more efficient to do so.  If you over-outsource, then it is no longer efficient.  Economic movement is Brownian and self-levelling.  These doomsday scenarios about how our society will be when we have outsourced "everything" are absolute nonsense.  That's not how it works.  In an open market, goods and jobs get moved to the most efficient purchaser and provider.  If you move too far in one direction, then that is no longer most efficient.

4.  As to your statements about serfs and social elites - what you said makes absolutely no sense.  I cannot develop a response to nonsense.

Outsourcing is as old as the hills.  Alarmists have been making a big deal of it for centuries (millenia?), and the alarmists have always been wrong.  Outsourcing simply means looking for ways to be more efficient, and efficiency benefits everybody.

Horsepower wrote: Something big will happen soon, within 30-100 years for sure, if the sun doesn't die and kill us, we will kill each other.

I think we're got a few billion years left on that one.

There are several conditions that will kill us before the sun dies out.

Overpopulation, lack of natural resources....not to mention we could see a drastic enviromental change. The earth has been known to do that.

Either way, we'll need a nuclear war withing the next 200 years to thin out populations a little.

I don't either. That's what a meant-a natural enviromental change.

Cue global warming debate in 5...4...3...2...1...

oldsoldier wrote: I still do not understand where you believe Joe Average american will gain meaningfull employment, hense spending capital, once the "efficient" industrial and economic base is overseas.

We have been outsourcing for centuries, yet most Americans have jobs.  The proof is in the pudding.  It is absolutely ludicrous to think that "all" the jobs would be sent abroad.  That's not how it works.  At some point unemployment becomes high enough here that it is more cost-effective to keep the jobs here.  Outsourcing is simply a move towards equilibrium, not a move to a "no-jobs-in-America" extreme.

This argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Moreover, this all works both ways.  Have you noticed that many foreign manufacturers have established facilities in the US?  There is a word for that:  "outsourcing".  Spanish windmills are made in Iowa because it is more efficient to service the US windmill market with local manufacture.  Therefore Spanish jobs were outsourced to the US.  Ditto for a zillion other little things.  Heck, even some of the jobs we outsourced to India a decade ago are being outsourced back to the US now.

If there are no jobs to create capital, where is Joe Average to get the capital to purchase these efficiently made goods?

See above.  This alternate universe where "there are no jobs because they were all sent abroad" is a complete fantasy.  It makes no sense, and only displays a complete lack of understanding for even the most basic principles of economics.  And if principles don't work for you, just look out the window.  People are working.  By this theory, nobody should be working, anywhere on the planet, because "all the jobs" went "abroad". 

The current doctor/lawyer/polititians types who proclaim themselves to be the "needed" elite, will again be able to manage the resources available to the the serfs (the remaining americans in pure service industries catering to the elite) it is simple stand on the elite balcony and wave at the underlings mindset that you Susan are more guilty than I.

Again, you are behind the times.  Manufacturing jobs were mostly outsourced in the 70s.  In the 80s and 90s it was technology jobs getting sent overseas.  Today it is professional jobs - doctors, lawyers, accountants.  Many professionals today service clients they have never seen and will never meet.  Lawyers and in the US compete with lawyers in India; doctors in the US compete with doctors in Brazil.

This idea of the "elite" that is somehow foisting this new world order on the "serfs" is not only a conspiracy theory of the highest order and completely counter to basic economics, but is also backwards.  The greatest beneficiaries of economic efficiency is always the poorest.  The wealthy and powerful thrive on limitations and inefficiencies.  That's how they stay wealthy and powerful - by limiting the ability of others to compete.

Thanks to outsourcing, it is easier than ever for a poor person both to gain immediate material goods and to move up the food chain.  Starting a business used to be only for the "elite" - now all you need is a garage and a broadband connection.

Economic efficiency is the great equalizer, and the "average Joe" is the great winner.

Oh and just for the record, in your infinate wisdom please explain the growth of the Peoples Army from a 2nd rate more defensive force to a 1st rate offensive military. No need for a Blue Water Navy, Intercontinental Air Force, or technologically and numerically superior land force if you have no offensive goals in the world, why waste the resources more needed for an economic goal?

By this theory, the US is the greatest threat to world peace... oh, wait.

Oh, and explain to Detroit how "that's not how it works" after thier jobs went to cheaper sourcing.

Clearly it always sucks to be the guy that loses his job.  But that's the thing about capitalism - there are winners and losers.  Capitalism gives you a chance, but does not guarantee success.  You want guaranteed non-failure?  That's called socialism - you seem to be advocating it a lot.

Yep, the Detroit car companies (and their employees) are losers in the current economy.  Too bad.  I never promised that everybody would win.  That's not how capitalism works.

And as I may have said once or twice:  I hate part-time capitalists.  Everybody loves capitalism until they lose their job, and then they suddenly become socialists.

Besides, if you can't find a job in Michigan, MOVE!  I hear they are hiring in India.

My bad dude, I just re-read your post. I misunderstood.

Me=ass.

oldsoldier wrote: And all war is not bullets and bombs, I seem to remmember the west defeating a great empire (The Soviet Union) by pure economic means without firing a shot.

Without firing a shot? Tell that to the Soviets who bankrputed themselves in violent wars in a number of countries, as well as frequent border clashes with China. Yes, it's economic, but the U.S., and certainly not Reagan, did not single handedly topple their empire.

Evil Elvis wrote: oldsoldier wrote: Oh, and explain to Detroit how "that's not how it works" after thier jobs went to cheaper sourcing. Says the guy who is in his second Kia Sportage.

Count it!

oldsoldier wrote: But we all know the globalists (yes you Susan) have thier agenda, America bad, socialism/communism good, if it is good for America must be bad for the world, so lets level the playing field, but have a slope more towards the Chinese, and a coal plant a day with now enviornmental restrictions just means I must sell my SUV and get my carbon credits just to enrich the vast poor chinese economy.

It would seem to me that calling Storm a globalist, and thereby associating her with socialists and communists, would be slightly counterintuitive seeing the amount of effort put in by her to argue as such an extreme capitalist.

And I think you are trying to see something that isn't there, Mr. Soldier, given what I have read in and out of this thread.

America will win if it happens

oldsoldier wrote: ... how a trade deficiet, based on unbalanced trade with a communist country, ...

The "trade deficit" is WAY oversold by alarmists everywhere.  There is nothing inherently bad about a "trade deficit".  Where there may be problematic results relates to the sometimes awkward results on the involved currencies, and trade relations are just one of many things that affect currencies.  And currencies, like much in economics, have a way of self-leveling over time.

The problem we have with China here has less to do with the trade deficit than with China's artificial propping up of the yuan, rather than letting it float against the dollar.  Left to their own devices, the dollar/yuan relationship would settle at the correct point, which in turn would stabilize the trade relationship.

Bush has done a decent job pressuring China to let the yuan drop, although more probably needs to be done.  But the problem isn't the trade relationship per se, but the artificial currency manipulation.

...as well as the loss of internal national income at the price of cheaper consumer goods ...

Have we "lost internal national income"?  While I am sure you can find some study that says that for the short run, whatever that means, I seriously dispute any claim that Americans do not live better, economically speaking, now than before - taking a longish (decades) view on the point.  Zoomed out a bit, things are better now than ever before.

And "cheap consumer goods?"  You think this is all we get out of outsourcing?  Very shortsighted.

First off, do not underestimate the value of cheap consumer goods.  Cheaper clothes and toys leaves more room for food and other necessities.  Cheaper cars allows more families than ever to be mobile, thereby broadening their economic opportunities.  Cheaper computers allow almost anybody to start their own business or work from their homes, and work more efficiently at that.

Cheap consumer goods aren't just TVs and DVD players, but essentials of life and economy.

Beyond that, however, outsourcing has done something much more important:  Free up Americans for better jobs.  The American workforce is generally highly skilled/educated, literate, and capable.  Yet for decades this excellent workforce was wasted on mindless menial labor, like typing pools, call centers, low-end assembly line work, clothes and shoe manufacture, and so forth.  We were essentially collectively overqualified.  As a result, our workforce was woefully underutilized.

Over time, however, this problem has been reduced, principally by two means:  technology and outsourcing.  Computers eliminated the typing pools, and outsourcing eliminated the call centers.  This freed up valuable American labor for better work.

And the results are clearly evident.  Study after study shows that Americans create more wealth per hour worked than just about anybody else on the planet.  In comparison, workers in the "outsourcing" countries (South and East Asia, for instance), produce less value per hour worked than anybody else.  And why not?  They are basically doing monkey work - we are doing high-level work worthy of our qualifications.

And THAT is the true reward of efficient outsourcing.  We were doing incredibly wasteful work before, just because there was nobody else to do it - now we can focus our efforts where it pays.  American employment levels have stayed steady over the decades, while productivity has soared, because our jobs have improved.

Outsourcing has created immense wealth for Americans.

If we could adapt the labor laws (or lack therin) of these low labor cost nations we could solve most of our unemployment issues,

Ah - a good point.  Yes, an efficient market requires consistent rules, and our employers are hampered, relatively speaking, by US labor requirements.  But frankly I don't view this as a huge problem.  This partly because "labor laws" apply disproportionately to lower-end jobs.  Every labor law-restricted job that is exported frees that laborer up to do a better job, which is not subject to nearly the regulation.

More importantly, however, is the reality that labor unions have contributed far more to the recent plight of the American laborer than any labor law.  Why labor unions are not illegal I cannot fathom, as it is clearly anti-competitive behavior.

Thanks to labor unions, US auto companies are saddled with crushing defined-benefit retirement plans that are threatening to sink the entire industry.  Thanks to labor unions, employers are not able to put the best and cheapest man on the job or fire the overpaid incompetents.  You want to know a large reason for much outsourcing back in the 70s?  Labor unions.

And all war is not bullets and bombs, I seem to remmember the west defeating a great empire (The Soviet Union) by pure economic means without firing a shot. Do you think maybe the Chinese have refined that lesson just a tad to fit thier situation?

Just because money was involved in both situations does mean that they are similar.  That comparison is meaningless.

But it does raise a valuable point:  During that time, the US aggressively engaged in a global economy and encouraged efficiencies.  Jobs were outsourced, new markets were opened, and competitive behavior was encouraged.

In the meantime, the USSR was being economically isolationist and imposed inefficient rules restrictions.

No wonder the US DOD was able to outspend the USSR DOD.  We had a more robust economy, in no small part thanks to outsourcing and globalization.

But we all know the globalists (yes you Susan) have thier agenda, America bad, socialism/communism good

I am certainly a globalist, but if you think that I think socialism/communism is good, then you have not been paying attention.  Seriously - have you even been reading my posts?

Yes it is a war, and it is being fought with your wallets.

It is not a war.  The Chinese are not out to "get" us.  We are not out to "get" them.  Everybody is just trying to make a buck/quay.  That's not war, it's not business as usual.

Ben Dover II wrote: America will win if it happens

You should get guested just from this comment.

Here's the thing about steel - just like oil, it is a complete commodity.  When Harley buys steel from Pennsylvania, they are simply forcing some other American buyer to buy steel from the Czech Republic (or wherever).  Bragging about buying "American steel" is just as idiotic as bragging about buying "American oil".

They are commodities in a fairly fluid market (at least when Bush keeps his hands off) - source is irrelevant.

oldsoldier wrote: Remmember I am willing to bet Susan's employment is not jeopardized by current economic trends, betting on one of the more social elite employment classes, so the current economic sitution is to "her" benifit, at the costs of another.

You already made this point, and I already refuted it.  I face competition every day that you cannot comprehend.  I work hard to not become commoditized and expendable, and I compete with people nationwide and internationally.  I have to justify my existence every day.

Your delusions about the "social elite" are just that - delusional.  The further up the food chain you climb, the LESS job security you have, and the MORE competition you face.

Oops - triple post.  Doh.

oldsoldier wrote: Susan, you did avoid the question on China's switch to a more offensive military stance over the past few years. If the Chinese are so fearrfull of a war with the west hurting thier economic goals, why such a vast expendature and research in a military they will "never" use. Thier self stated goal of the re-aquiring of Taiwan through military means if required may have something to do with it. And our response on a military "adventure" by the mainland against Taiwan will be? Your classic, because "we do it" defense you acuse me of will not work here.

I didn't dodge it, but didn't want to mess up a perfectly fine economics conversation with military concerns.

Clearly we should be cognizant of China's military potential, but it would paranoid to a Stalin-esque level to jump straight from "China is increasing their military" to "they're coming straight for us!"

There are a whole host of reasons for increasing the military that have nothing to do with invading the US, and I am not aware that we have any other intelligence that would support such a conclusion.

If there came a time when we had actual good cause to fear a military threat from China, then it would make sense to begin severing economic ties (or increasing them drastically, depending on strategic preference), but TMK we are nowhere near there at this time. 

And one more question Susan- If moving from Detroit for economic advantage would be the answer, explain why the same answer is not proposed with New Orleans currently?

It has been suggested, many times, by many people.

Kristofer wrote: i'd rather see less made from china crap personally. their communists. get goods from taiwan, japan, philippines, euopre, americas. i dont care. just not from a communist nation.

I didn't know the Cold War was still raging.

Kristofer wrote: i'd rather see less made from china crap personally. their communists. get goods from taiwan, japan, philippines, euopre, americas. i dont care. just not from a communist nation.

Mexico or Africa ftw. They pose no threat and are not very strong.

oldsoldier wrote: Like I stated, all wars are not guns, bullets and bombs. Why fight when you can buy out your enemy one job, factory, industry, dollar at a time. I just fear who China's collection agent will be..........when the debt is called.

It's coming...