• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

One Diagram That Will Change the Way You Look At the US Economy

jaeger19 said:
The next generation needs something to be making other than shovels.. you seem to think that it comes out of thin air.
Click to expand...
No, but it does come. The issue, therefore, isn't what industries we have, but how much of it we have.

Saucey said:
Well in the past the government has not had as big a role into the service industry as they have with agriculture and manufacturing. That's probably one reason our service oriented economy is so large. I mean take agriculture for example.. The USDA even tells farmers what they can and cannot bring to crop. And in ww2 they totally took over the manufacturing sector (you can argue whether or not that was essential to a quick end to the war). And their foothold remains much more so that you can easily see. Once their tentacles get entrenched, there's no end to it.
I believe in America, its people, and its potential to be the best in everything. However we have a lot of forces that slow us down and in many cases knock us down. That's the people I do not believe in. Whether its through weakness or dirty deals with other countries.
Click to expand...
As always, we're missing the link between government intervention and loss of industry.

Besides that, you can't honestly say government intervenes in manufacturing much now, and that's clearly not the reason we don't do manufacturing anymore.

I do, however, believe that government intervention in agriculture definitely is horrible for our economy--certainly for small businesses. Agricultural law is basically written by corporations to protect themselves against competition.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
Surely the Canadians on this forum aren't going to let that one go.
Click to expand...

I was going to say something, but then I thought, naw, things would just get tedious. I suppose we are lucky Mr R at least omitted maple syrup, singing mounties, and beavers building dams.
 
jaeger19 said:
Let me point out.. that if we had invested correctly as a nation and privately... my uncle could be making 30 dollars an hour making shovels today.
Click to expand...

Shovels are a normal type of good. They haven't changed much, other than the production process to build them. No amount of investment is going to keep people manufacturing the way they were 50 years ago. It is simply more attractive for capital to seek to produce more value. Back when your uncle was making shovels, offices still ran on secretaries and typewriters.

Things change.

Paying a guy $30/hr to build shovels is not as productive as paying a guy $30/hr to do HVAC repair.
 
gavinfielder said:
No, but it does come. The issue, therefore, isn't what industries we have, but how much of it we have.


As always, we're missing the link between government intervention and loss of industry.

Besides that, you can't honestly say government intervenes in manufacturing much now, and that's clearly not the reason we don't do manufacturing anymore.

I do, however, believe that government intervention in agriculture definitely is horrible for our economy--certainly for small businesses. Agricultural law is basically written by corporations to protect themselves against competition.
Click to expand...

No it does not come... go live in a third world country... and you will realize that it doesn't just come.
 
Kushinator said:
Shovels are a normal type of good. They haven't changed much, other than the production process to build them. No amount of investment is going to keep people manufacturing the way they were 50 years ago. It is simply more attractive for capital to seek to produce more value. Back when your uncle was making shovels, offices still ran on secretaries and typewriters.

Things change.

Paying a guy $30/hr to build shovels is not as productive as paying a guy $30/hr to do HVAC repair.
Click to expand...

Well actually when my uncle was manufacturing shovels.. he did it with machines.. while in China,, well they did it by hanAnd the US company was through technology.. able to meet demand and pay my uncle a good wage.

Then China and Mexico caught up with technology.. and education.. .while the US rested on its laurels and patted itself on the back. And then it became more cost effective to outsource shovel making to mexico and China.

Where.. if we had continued to lower our costs... for example, technology that lowered the cost of production of shovels in the us... for example cheap energy so energy costs were dramatically lower for the US versus China... the US would still be making shovels.. and my uncle would have continued to have a good job.. and salaries would not have stagnated.
 
American said:
One Diagram that Will Change the Way You Look at the US Economy

View attachment 67193460



Interesting perspective on the sizes of various economies.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Interesting.

More interesting than the point it conveys is that it really confirms that the concept of breaking the economy-ending down into just 3 major parts is insufficient. "Service" is the greatest sector in almost EVERY country graphed. Sometimes far greater than the sum of the other two.

Service means simple: "You're not mining / producing physical or edible goods" - which includes everything from construction companies to beauty salons.

And the alternative is the 4 part industry sector concept which takes 'educational / research' and separates it from the rest, which is probably less than agriculture.
 
jaeger19 said:
No it does not come... go live in a third world country... and you will realize that it doesn't just come.
Click to expand...
Obviously, we have industry because of investment, sure. Do you want to argue semantics or argue my point?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Hmm. Interesting.

More interesting than the point it conveys is that it really confirms that the concept of breaking the economy-ending down into just 3 major parts is insufficient. "Service" is the greatest sector in almost EVERY country graphed. Sometimes far greater than the sum of the other two.

Service means simple: "You're not mining / producing physical or edible goods" - which includes everything from construction companies to beauty salons.

And the alternative is the 4 part industry sector concept which takes 'educational / research' and separates it from the rest, which is probably less than agriculture.
Click to expand...

US still blows everyone else away on research, which typically measured by papers published.
 
jaeger19 said:
Where.. if we had continued to lower our costs... for example, technology that lowered the cost of production of shovels in the us... for example cheap energy so energy costs were dramatically lower for the US versus China... the US would still be making shovels.. and my uncle would have continued to have a good job.. and salaries would not have stagnated.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. Remember, the demand for labor is alleviated with automation that replaces it in the production process.
 
gavinfielder said:
Obviously, we have industry because of investment, sure. Do you want to argue semantics or argue my point?
Click to expand...

I did argue your point. You now agree.. good.
 
Kushinator said:
Maybe, maybe not. Remember, the demand for labor is alleviated with automation that replaces it in the production process.
Click to expand...

But as goods from one country become cheaper (through automation) , the demand for that good (from that country) increases (as they capture marketshare) and the demand for labor in that country then increases.
 
jaeger19 said:
Alternative energy, education, space program, underwater exploration, battery technology, .. both private and public funds

And infrastructure.. roads, electrical grids, and education. public funds.
Click to expand...

Infrastructure I can see. It often employs a range of skills, low to high, and in the case of the US today, is needed.

Alternative energy is also a good use of funds, no doubt. How much employment will that engender? I'd say not much, in the scheme of things.

Education is an excellent goal, one more should aspire to. However, today we have unprecedented numbers of highly educated people, in the US, Europe, Canada, and other places, who cannot find employment that matches their skills. Educated people are abundant today. Careers for them are not. Further investment will not change things, by itself, IMO.

The space program has been heavily invested in, as has battery technology. The former has provided undoubted benefits, probably because no one took on a project of such magnitude before. The latter also provides promise, but certainly not for employment. Batteries will fuel software, computers, Google cars, and other applications that may or may not be good for society, but will most certainly not expand employment, and in some projections drastically reduce it.

As for underwater exploration, I don't really know what you mean here. If it's oil, that's already well underway.
 
American said:
US still blows everyone else away on research, which typically measured by papers published.
Click to expand...

Papers published? Which says exactly what?

Looked on on a per capita basis, some major countries publish similar amounts, some more, some a bit less.
 
How about this one? The consumer price index since the creation of our nation. Kinda funny how it just seems to skyrocket once the gold standard is abandoned. I'm sure that's pure coincidence, though.

Price-Inflation.jpg
 
Ganesh said:
Papers published? Which says exactly what?

Looked on on a per capita basis, some major countries publish similar amounts, some more, some a bit less.
Click to expand...

Your question is ridiculous, that's how it's measured. If you don't think the US leads in research you're not paying attention or in denial.
 
American said:
Your question is ridiculous, that's how it's measured. If you don't think the US leads in research you're not paying attention or in denial.
Click to expand...

America's research output is, by this measure, about what one would expect for a large modern economy. It publishes the most papers, but also has a relatively large population and economy. On a per capita basis, the US publishes at a rate behind a dozen or so countries, most of them in W Europe, but also ahead of less favored regions of the world. Another way to look at this is by percent of publications out of the total world output. This figure is about 20% for the US, not too much out of line for what we would expect, given the size of the US economy.

Perhaps something more significant to think about is the ongoing rise of the former third world countries, such as China, and their increasing importance in scientific and economic affairs:

China poised to overhaul US as biggest publisher of scientific papers | Science | The Guardian
 
Ganesh said:
America's research output is, by this measure, about what one would expect for a large modern economy. It publishes the most papers, but also has a relatively large population and economy. On a per capita basis, the US publishes at a rate behind a dozen or so countries, most of them in W Europe, but also ahead of less favored regions of the world. Another way to look at this is by percent of publications out of the total world output. This figure is about 20% for the US, not too much out of line for what we would expect, given the size of the US economy.

Perhaps something more significant to think about is the ongoing rise of the former third world countries, such as China, and their increasing importance in scientific and economic affairs:

China poised to overhaul US as biggest publisher of scientific papers | Science | The Guardian
Click to expand...

I'm not concerned about it. When they have stopped stealing technology, get back to me. Until then I'm unimpressed.
 
Ganesh said:
Infrastructure I can see. It often employs a range of skills, low to high, and in the case of the US today, is needed.

Alternative energy is also a good use of funds, no doubt. How much employment will that engender? I'd say not much, in the scheme of things.

Education is an excellent goal, one more should aspire to. However, today we have unprecedented numbers of highly educated people, in the US, Europe, Canada, and other places, who cannot find employment that matches their skills. Educated people are abundant today. Careers for them are not. Further investment will not change things, by itself, IMO.

The space program has been heavily invested in, as has battery technology. The former has provided undoubted benefits, probably because no one took on a project of such magnitude before. The latter also provides promise, but certainly not for employment. Batteries will fuel software, computers, Google cars, and other applications that may or may not be good for society, but will most certainly not expand employment, and in some projections drastically reduce it.

As for underwater exploration, I don't really know what you mean here. If it's oil, that's already well underway.
Click to expand...

1. Alternative energy will increase jobs tremendously. Its the future.. Fossil fuels are not increasing..and will only continue to decrease.while demand will continue to grow. The country that tops out with alternative energy.. will number one.. be able to compete with other countries that rely on fossil fuels. Imagine if American manufacturing had cheap energy to produce goods? We could get more manufacturing jobs back to the us because the decrease in energy cost.. would make up for the increase in wages. (vs china or mexico).

In addition.. alternative energy will require infrastructure.. and will spur all sorts of other industries and manufacturing as products MUST as indeed they must transition from fossil fuel based products( from lawnmowers to chainsaws) to alternative fuels.

2. No.. we don;t have an unprecedented number of highly educated people. We have an unprecedented number of people that have DEGREES.. which is an entirely different thing.

3. The space program WAS highly invested in.. and paid HUGE dividends in the private sector from the research and technology that was developed.. we used to reach for the stars.. now we reach for the remote. It was one of the things that fueled American dominance in manufacturing. and created millions of jobs. The same with battery technology.. as storage capacity is the largest hurdle for alternative energies using electricity. Not to mention tons of products that need battery power.. from cell phones to portable coffee makers. All technology that would create jobs in the US. IF we were the first to develop it and market it. And all that software.. computers, google cars. and other applications will expand employment..

4. underwater exploration for minerals, for underwater agriculture.. for new technologies and medicines, .. The technologies that were developed for space exploration.. they led to massive technological advancement and improvements in employment and wages. Underwater exploration offers not just the technological advances.. but also the return of energy, agriculture, minerals etc.
 
Riveroaks said:
Canada has oil, dirty oil at that, and timber, and fish. Those are Canada's only natural resources. This is not enough to support growth.

Canada barely survives.
Click to expand...

The same can be said about Russia and hence Russia is relegated to being a minor player in the world. That is a role that Russian nationalism and Putin's pride aren't ready to accept. Consequently they are more and more using their major power military to extend their influence - to say "look at us we count too".
 
WhyNotWhyNot said:
The same can be said about Russia and hence Russia is relegated to being a minor player in the world. That is a role that Russian nationalism and Putin's pride aren't ready to accept. Consequently they are more and more using their major power military to extend their influence - to say "look at us we count too".
Click to expand...

It would take a very long paper with a lot of primary research to verify your statement.

I don't believe it.

I believe Putin and the Russian People were genuinely pissed when Ukraine started a courtship with NATO.

Therefore I believe Putin is justified in taking Crimea back (it used to be Russian before it was Ukrainian) and also grabbing eastern Ukraine (it has as many Russians as Ukrainians).

So BHO and the CIA were the dumb azzes in this Russia/Ukraine drama. And NATO is the obsolete war league that needs to be dissolved.

The Russians have done their part for peace in Europe. The USA needs to get out.
 
riveroaks said:
it would take a very long paper with a lot of primary research to verify your statement.

I don't believe it.

I believe putin and the russian people were genuinely pissed when ukraine started a courtship with nato.

Therefore i believe putin is justified in taking crimea back (it used to be russian before it was ukrainian) and also grabbing eastern ukraine (it has as many russians as ukrainians).

So bho and the cia were the dumb azzes in this russia/ukraine drama. And nato is the obsolete war league that needs to be dissolved.

The russians have done their part for peace in europe. The usa needs to get out.
Click to expand...

qed !!
 
Riveroaks said:
I did not give anything other than my own opinions.

And opinions do not support any QED.

Do you know what QED means ??
Click to expand...

My error. I mis-read your location (I read CCCP - clearly you mean California). We do agree that the US and Western European foreign policies in Eastern Europe following the end of the Cold War has been inappropriately threatening to Russia.
 
WhyNotWhyNot said:
My error. I mis-read your location (I read CCCP - clearly you mean California). We do agree that the US and Western European foreign policies in Eastern Europe following the end of the Cold War has been inappropriately threatening to Russia.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

NATO has provoked Russia by attempting to expand it's own power and bring-in the former Soviet satellites.

NATO needs to be disbanded and the USA needs to exit Europe completely.

Otherwise the Russian people and Putin are NOT going to trust the West, nor should they.
 
Riveroaks said:
Exactly!

NATO has provoked Russia by attempting to expand it's own power and bring-in the former Soviet satellites.

NATO needs to be disbanded and the USA needs to exit Europe completely.

Otherwise the Russian people and Putin are NOT going to trust the West, nor should they.
Click to expand...



The issue isn't whether the Russian people and Putin should trust the West.. its whether Europe and all the countries THAT WERE FORMERLY DOMINATED BY THE RUSSIAN/SOVIET BLOCK.. should trust Russia and Putin.

Russia subjugated countries that were previously Independent countries prior to WWII and pulled them into "soviet bloc". They do not have the moral high ground in any way here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom