Economic recovery..

[Teenwolf]

I read a book recently called The New Frugality that went into ways to help the economy in North America. One of the main concepts was shifting away consuming goods more to paying for services. I found it interesting, thinking about paying for a babysitter or a gardener as a way of stabilizing the economy, as opposed to simply buying more stuff.

It seems to be the way things are going anyway, away from physical media (cds are already finished, vinyl is for fetishists, blu-ray will be the last physical media for movies) and into cloud-based storage.

I haven't made a whole lot of changes so far, but thinking about paying for chiropractors, nutritionists, personal trainers, or more frequent haircuts, whatever it may be, should help to boost the economy much more than buying a product that's probably imported, being sold by someone making minimum wage in some part of the service industry.

Don't we all own too much crap anyway?

[OaklandA's]

The motivation is that it helps our country to invest domestically and it hurts our country to spend money overseas. Isn't that motivation enough?

For a corporation? Probably not. They need to minimize costs to stay competitive.

What are you suggesting that the government do? What financial incentive should they use to encourage consumers to buy domestic, or to discourage businesses from sending work overseas? Because I don't think hoping for patriotism to trump economics will be the solution.

[DMT]

Don't we all own too much crap anyway?

It owns us.

[madducks]

How do you get more dumbasses employed?

Build more libraries?

J/K, Mith. :flame:

:ROFL:

Sorry Mith, but even you have to admit that was funny.

[Wonderboy]

I'm not so sure that a move to a manufacturing-based society would be anything but a regression.

Agree, with some relatively minor exceptions. That day is done, and you can look on that as either a catastrophe or an opportunity.

[Lucky]

Agree, with some relatively minor exceptions. That day is done, and you can look on that as either a catastrophe or an opportunity.

Maybe with consumer goods, but not with busses and trains and airplanes and steel and the manufacturing industries that made us the strongest economy in the world at one time.

[Lucky]

For a corporation? Probably not. They need to minimize costs to stay competitive.

What are you suggesting that the government do? What financial incentive should they use to encourage consumers to buy domestic, or to discourage businesses from sending work overseas? Because I don't think hoping for patriotism to trump economics will be the solution.

Minimizing costs to stay competitive isn't necessarily the only dynamic possible. One financial incentive that could be used is the oldest in the book...make foreign products more expensive than domestic products. Tariffs have been used for centuries. Of course, if our goods are going to cost more, our workers will need to make more in order to be able to afford them. Eventually we could get back to where craftsmen and tradesmen can make a good living.

[Lucky]

I read a book recently called The New Frugality that went into ways to help the economy in North America. One of the main concepts was shifting away consuming goods more to paying for services. I found it interesting, thinking about paying for a babysitter or a gardener as a way of stabilizing the economy, as opposed to simply buying more stuff.

It seems to be the way things are going anyway, away from physical media (cds are already finished, vinyl is for fetishists, blu-ray will be the last physical media for movies) and into cloud-based storage.

I haven't made a whole lot of changes so far, but thinking about paying for chiropractors, nutritionists, personal trainers, or more frequent haircuts, whatever it may be, should help to boost the economy much more than buying a product that's probably imported, being sold by someone making minimum wage in some part of the service industry.

Don't we all own too much crap anyway?

Yes, we own too much crap. I would like to see us own fewer things and have them be of better quality.

The problem with a service based economy, though, is that so many of the jobs in the service sector are the absolute lowest paying jobs in our country. People can work two service sector jobs and still not have enough money to live. If you work a minimum wage job, you make $15,000 before taxes. Work two full time minimum wage jobs, and you only make $30,000. Can you support a spouse and two kids on that where you live? If so, what kind of life? One filled with joy and optimism for the future?

Spending money with chiropractors, nutritionists, and personal trainers is a good idea, I agree. However, and I don't know about nutritionists and personal trainers, but chiropractors make a very good living. My guess would be that nutritionists and personal trainers do too, but those aren't professions you see around here. They tend to thrive where the client base is wealthier.

[chancellor]

More cough syrup for Lucky!! Or have the bartender give him bad Scotch, which tastes about the same! Or even good Scotch, if he wants it...

Fundamentally, the service sector of the economy can only take us so far. A significant portion of our economy must be based on adding value to raw materials - which means some combination of construction and manufacturing. We need to either level the playing field relative to currency (especially with China) or start selectively tariffing goods that take advantage of artificially devalued currencies.

[Lucky]

More cough syrup for Lucky!! Or have the bartender give him bad Scotch, which tastes about the same! Or even good Scotch, if he wants it...

Fundamentally, the service sector of the economy can only take us so far. A significant portion of our economy must be based on adding value to raw materials - which means some combination of construction and manufacturing. We need to either level the playing field relative to currency (especially with China) or start selectively tariffing goods that take advantage of artificially devalued currencies.

It is hard to tell, but it looks as though you are agreeing with me, at least on these three points that I made above: 1) the service sector alone cannot save our economy, 2) we must manufacture again in order to strengthen our economy, and 3) a tariff would protect our industries by obviating the necessity that they compete with cheaply made foreign goods. But, since I cannot recall your ever having agreed with me, I just don't know.

[chancellor]

It is hard to tell, but it looks as though you are agreeing with me, at least on these three points that I made above: 1) the service sector alone cannot save our economy, 2) we must manufacture again in order to strengthen our economy, and 3) a tariff would protect our industries by obviating the necessity that they compete with cheaply made foreign goods. But, since I cannot recall your ever having agreed with me, I just don't know.

Definitely on 1 and 2, though on 3, tariffs would not be my first choice but are an option that should be exercised soon, particularily vis a vis China. As I've noted in the past, in the last 20 years or so, the only real serious tariffs were implemented by the GW Bush Administration on steel, literally saving what was left of the steel industry in the US.

I'll try and make a longer post on the topic from home this weekend, but a key fourth item needs to be included for long-term, successful economic recovery: controllable energy costs.

[Kevin Seitzer]

More cough syrup for Lucky!! Or have the bartender give him bad Scotch, which tastes about the same! Or even good Scotch, if he wants it...

Fundamentally, the service sector of the economy can only take us so far. A significant portion of our economy must be based on adding value to raw materials - which means some combination of construction and manufacturing. We need to either level the playing field relative to currency (especially with China) or start selectively tariffing goods that take advantage of artificially devalued currencies.

But American manufacturing output has actually been on the increase for decades. What's the concern here?

[OaklandA's]

Minimizing costs to stay competitive isn't necessarily the only dynamic possible. One financial incentive that could be used is the oldest in the book...make foreign products more expensive than domestic products. Tariffs have been used for centuries. Of course, if our goods are going to cost more, our workers will need to make more in order to be able to afford them. Eventually we could get back to where craftsmen and tradesmen can make a good living.

I am a little skeptical of tariffs doing much more than making things more expensive for consumers. FWIW, a 25% tariff on goods imported from China seems to be one of the central platforms in Donald Trump's presidential campaign.

[chancellor]

But American manufacturing output has actually been on the increase for decades. What's the concern here?

Hmmm...I'm not tracking with you here, KS. Industrial production and utilization since 1989 is summarized here:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/current/table12.htm

By my read, we've had negative growth since 2001 in industrial production, and a significant decrease in utilization.

[Gregg]

But American manufacturing output has actually been on the increase for decades. What's the concern here?

How do you define American Manufacturing? American companies that buy cheap components overseas and assemble here. American companies that own factories in Mexico or China that do their manufacturing? Or true American companies that build everything (90%) content right here?