How do these manufacturing scenarios rank?

[NightFox]

Our government did nothing. No incentives, No plan. They let it happen.

.

FYI, it's not up to government to plan the economy or "save" any particular industry, the fact that it keeps trying to do it is the primary driver of the misallocation of capital that causes many of the cyclical issues and growth limitations that we have faced.

Trump's protectionism is just continuing the trend and likely won't yield the positive results he claims he's looking to achieve. On the bright side at least he's trying to deal with the long term issues created by lopsided terms of trade, which is unusual for anybody in Washington, unfortunately IMHO he's going about it in the wrong way. In my estimation he would have been far more effective to work out the trade issues with our NAFTA partners first, then work with the Europeans to balance the terms of trade and then deal with Asia (China & Japan primarily) as a united front, as it stands now his strategy has pitted us in multiple trade confrontations with almost EVERYBODY and thus the end result will be missed wealth creation opportunities for EVERYBODY.

Partially true, but if you're counting on private actors to set interest rates, environmental protections, build infrastructure and decide int'l national trade disputes .. count me out.

I'm not counting on "private actors" to set interest rates, the market can do that and do it without creating the speculative bubble-bust cycles that central bankers constantly create through miscalculation, politics and corruption.

As far as "environmental protections", there is a role for government there since it is best positioned to compensate for externalities, of course its record of doing so without cronyism, incompetence and graft has been mixed at best.

International trade "disputes" are a function of terms of trade, governments are best positioned to lead such efforts but not in a vacuum and not without clearly articulating goals & strategies BEFORE engaging in agreements or ironing out disputes over terms. What we have now is a system that obfuscates strategy, goals AND potential negative consequences/risks from the public, in other words the process has become almost purely political.

 

[bendog]

Our government did nothing. No incentives, No plan. They let it happen.

.

FYI, it's not up to government to plan the economy or "save" any particular industry, the fact that it keeps trying to do it is the primary driver of the misallocation of capital that causes many of the cyclical issues and growth limitations that we have faced.

Trump's protectionism is just continuing the trend and likely won't yield the positive results he claims he's looking to achieve. On the bright side at least he's trying to deal with the long term issues created by lopsided terms of trade, which is unusual for anybody in Washington, unfortunately IMHO he's going about it in the wrong way. In my estimation he would have been far more effective to work out the trade issues with our NAFTA partners first, then work with the Europeans to balance the terms of trade and then deal with Asia (China & Japan primarily) as a united front, as it stands now his strategy has pitted us in multiple trade confrontations with almost EVERYBODY and thus the end result will be missed wealth creation opportunities for EVERYBODY.

Partially true, but if you're counting on private actors to set interest rates, environmental protections, build infrastructure and decide int'l national trade disputes .. count me out.

I'm not counting on "private actors" to set interest rates, the market can do that and do it without creating the speculative bubble-bust cycles that central bankers constantly create through miscalculation, politics and corruption.

As far as "environmental protections", there is a role for government there since it is best positioned to compensate for externalities, of course its record of doing so without cronyism, incompetence and graft has been mixed at best.

International trade "disputes" are a function of terms of trade, governments are best positioned to lead such efforts but not in a vacuum and not without clearly articulating goals & strategies BEFORE engaging in agreements or ironing out disputes over terms. What we have now is a system that obfuscates strategy, goals AND potential negative consequences/risks from the public, in other words the process has become almost purely political.

Markets are private actors. So yes, you're about private actors setting interest rates. We tried that, and it gave us 25% unemployment and near brush with communism.

 

[NightFox]

Our government did nothing. No incentives, No plan. They let it happen.

.

FYI, it's not up to government to plan the economy or "save" any particular industry, the fact that it keeps trying to do it is the primary driver of the misallocation of capital that causes many of the cyclical issues and growth limitations that we have faced.

Trump's protectionism is just continuing the trend and likely won't yield the positive results he claims he's looking to achieve. On the bright side at least he's trying to deal with the long term issues created by lopsided terms of trade, which is unusual for anybody in Washington, unfortunately IMHO he's going about it in the wrong way. In my estimation he would have been far more effective to work out the trade issues with our NAFTA partners first, then work with the Europeans to balance the terms of trade and then deal with Asia (China & Japan primarily) as a united front, as it stands now his strategy has pitted us in multiple trade confrontations with almost EVERYBODY and thus the end result will be missed wealth creation opportunities for EVERYBODY.

Partially true, but if you're counting on private actors to set interest rates, environmental protections, build infrastructure and decide int'l national trade disputes .. count me out.

I'm not counting on "private actors" to set interest rates, the market can do that and do it without creating the speculative bubble-bust cycles that central bankers constantly create through miscalculation, politics and corruption.

As far as "environmental protections", there is a role for government there since it is best positioned to compensate for externalities, of course its record of doing so without cronyism, incompetence and graft has been mixed at best.

International trade "disputes" are a function of terms of trade, governments are best positioned to lead such efforts but not in a vacuum and not without clearly articulating goals & strategies BEFORE engaging in agreements or ironing out disputes over terms. What we have now is a system that obfuscates strategy, goals AND potential negative consequences/risks from the public, in other words the process has become almost purely political.

Markets are private actors.

Markets are collections of both individual public and private actors that are based on an aggregate of behaviors, so it's not a "private actor", it's essentially a voting mechanism for price discovery, capital allocation and the distribution of goods and services. If you prefer central planners over that then you can count me out, history is replete with the wreckage of centrally planned economies (see: The Soviet Union for further details).

So yes, you're about private actors setting interest rates. We tried that, and it gave us 25% unemployment and near brush with communism.

When did this happen absent central bankers and debt based fiat currency?

 

[Claudette]

Our government did nothing. No incentives, No plan. They let it happen.

.

FYI, it's not up to government to plan the economy or "save" any particular industry, the fact that it keeps trying to do it is the primary driver of the misallocation of capital that causes many of the cyclical issues and growth limitations that we have faced.

Trump's protectionism is just continuing the trend and likely won't yield the positive results he claims he's looking to achieve. On the bright side at least he's trying to deal with the long term issues created by lopsided terms of trade, which is unusual for anybody in Washington, unfortunately IMHO he's going about it in the wrong way. In my estimation he would have been far more effective to work out the trade issues with our NAFTA partners first, then work with the Europeans to balance the terms of trade and then deal with Asia (China & Japan primarily) as a united front, as it stands now his strategy has pitted us in multiple trade confrontations with almost EVERYBODY and thus the end result will be missed wealth creation opportunities for EVERYBODY.

Partially true, but if you're counting on private actors to set interest rates, environmental protections, build infrastructure and decide int'l national trade disputes .. count me out.

I'm not counting on "private actors" to set interest rates, the market can do that and do it without creating the speculative bubble-bust cycles that central bankers constantly create through miscalculation, politics and corruption.

As far as "environmental protections", there is a role for government there since it is best positioned to compensate for externalities, of course its record of doing so without cronyism, incompetence and graft has been mixed at best.

International trade "disputes" are a function of terms of trade, governments are best positioned to lead such efforts but not in a vacuum and not without clearly articulating goals & strategies BEFORE engaging in agreements or ironing out disputes over terms. What we have now is a system that obfuscates strategy, goals AND potential negative consequences/risks from the public, in other words the process has become almost purely political.

Markets are private actors.

Markets are collections of both individual public and private actors that are based on an aggregate of behaviors, so it's not a "private actor", it's essentially a voting mechanism for price discovery, capital allocation and the distribution of goods and services. If you prefer central planners over that then you can count me out, history is replete with the wreckage of centrally planned economies (see: The Soviet Union for further details).

So yes, you're about private actors setting interest rates. We tried that, and it gave us 25% unemployment and near brush with communism.

When did this happen absent central bankers and debt based fiat currency?

Well NF you know your shit on this stuff and none of your detractors can compete.

Way ta go lady. LOL

 

[OKTexas]

1) A us manufacturer uses US labor & all us made raw materials

2) A us Manufacturer using US labor but imports some raw materials.

3) A Foreign company with a factor in the US that uses all US raw materials

4) A foreign company with a US factory that uses some imported raw materials

5) I US company manufacturing over seas & importing those products to the US

6) A foreign company exporting products to the US

Obviously, we like 1 but what after that?

I'm thinking they are in order as written as beneficial to our country.

When the imported steel is now more expensive, it raises the pricing on these company's goods in scenario 2 & 4 & this hurts those companies & their employees.

Does it help those in 1 & 3? Maybe but years to expand to help before help to those whose jobs were lost.

I am not even talking about those who will be hurt by retaliatory tariffs like our farmers and manufacturers like Harley Davidson.

When we hurt companies in scenarios 2 & 4, we lose American jobs. Manufacturing jobs, distributor jobs, & any job that supports the communities where these lay-offs will happen.

The steel industry in this country is where it is due to their own actions starting 50 years ago. Why are all these people suffering now because of it? If US steel makers supply 70% of our needs, is it worth a trade war to boost that maybe 10%? And why are we helping an industry that basically self destructed years ago?

I have a competitor that claims his raw materials are made here in the US. But they are made by a Russian owned mill here in the US & some of those profits go back to Russia. I'd rather see a US company manufacturing goods that import 20-30% of their steel & their profits stay here.

So where was this attitude when GM and Chrysler were dying at their own hand? Me thinks I'm smelling some hypocrisy here.


.

Different administrations. Obama was not about to lose a segment of our auto manufacturing because of the Bush recession. Economic times were finishing off these manufacturers.

And decades of poor management made them vulnerable in the first place. I guess it's always different when your guy does it. I wonder why Ford was able to weather the storm without tax payer money?


.

 

[bendog]

Our government did nothing. No incentives, No plan. They let it happen.

.

FYI, it's not up to government to plan the economy or "save" any particular industry, the fact that it keeps trying to do it is the primary driver of the misallocation of capital that causes many of the cyclical issues and growth limitations that we have faced.

Trump's protectionism is just continuing the trend and likely won't yield the positive results he claims he's looking to achieve. On the bright side at least he's trying to deal with the long term issues created by lopsided terms of trade, which is unusual for anybody in Washington, unfortunately IMHO he's going about it in the wrong way. In my estimation he would have been far more effective to work out the trade issues with our NAFTA partners first, then work with the Europeans to balance the terms of trade and then deal with Asia (China & Japan primarily) as a united front, as it stands now his strategy has pitted us in multiple trade confrontations with almost EVERYBODY and thus the end result will be missed wealth creation opportunities for EVERYBODY.

Partially true, but if you're counting on private actors to set interest rates, environmental protections, build infrastructure and decide int'l national trade disputes .. count me out.

I'm not counting on "private actors" to set interest rates, the market can do that and do it without creating the speculative bubble-bust cycles that central bankers constantly create through miscalculation, politics and corruption.

As far as "environmental protections", there is a role for government there since it is best positioned to compensate for externalities, of course its record of doing so without cronyism, incompetence and graft has been mixed at best.

International trade "disputes" are a function of terms of trade, governments are best positioned to lead such efforts but not in a vacuum and not without clearly articulating goals & strategies BEFORE engaging in agreements or ironing out disputes over terms. What we have now is a system that obfuscates strategy, goals AND potential negative consequences/risks from the public, in other words the process has become almost purely political.

Markets are private actors.

Markets are collections of both individual public and private actors that are based on an aggregate of behaviors, so it's not a "private actor", it's essentially a voting mechanism for price discovery, capital allocation and the distribution of goods and services. If you prefer central planners over that then you can count me out, history is replete with the wreckage of centrally planned economies (see: The Soviet Union for further details).

So yes, you're about private actors setting interest rates. We tried that, and it gave us 25% unemployment and near brush with communism.

When did this happen absent central bankers and debt based fiat currency?

You seriously ask when the US had 25% unenemployment and a near brush with communism?

We've had the greatest expansion in history under central banks setting rates. The gold standard is a fiction because it acts to contract money supply at exactly the wrong time. Conservatives proved that.

The reason we had hyper inflation in the late 70s was Nixon pressured Arthur Burns to not raise rates, and Trump is trying that right now with Kudlow leading the charge.

Trump probably has some legit complaint about unfair trade. But is it on autos with Japan and the EU? I really don't know. Our steel industry is of our own making, not others. Unless you count the fact that US for aid build Japan's furnaces and left ours in shambles. But that was an political decision.

No one seriously is talking, or has been since 1937, letting politicians determine what goods are built.

 

[NightFox]

FYI, it's not up to government to plan the economy or "save" any particular industry, the fact that it keeps trying to do it is the primary driver of the misallocation of capital that causes many of the cyclical issues and growth limitations that we have faced.

Trump's protectionism is just continuing the trend and likely won't yield the positive results he claims he's looking to achieve. On the bright side at least he's trying to deal with the long term issues created by lopsided terms of trade, which is unusual for anybody in Washington, unfortunately IMHO he's going about it in the wrong way. In my estimation he would have been far more effective to work out the trade issues with our NAFTA partners first, then work with the Europeans to balance the terms of trade and then deal with Asia (China & Japan primarily) as a united front, as it stands now his strategy has pitted us in multiple trade confrontations with almost EVERYBODY and thus the end result will be missed wealth creation opportunities for EVERYBODY.

Partially true, but if you're counting on private actors to set interest rates, environmental protections, build infrastructure and decide int'l national trade disputes .. count me out.

I'm not counting on "private actors" to set interest rates, the market can do that and do it without creating the speculative bubble-bust cycles that central bankers constantly create through miscalculation, politics and corruption.

As far as "environmental protections", there is a role for government there since it is best positioned to compensate for externalities, of course its record of doing so without cronyism, incompetence and graft has been mixed at best.

International trade "disputes" are a function of terms of trade, governments are best positioned to lead such efforts but not in a vacuum and not without clearly articulating goals & strategies BEFORE engaging in agreements or ironing out disputes over terms. What we have now is a system that obfuscates strategy, goals AND potential negative consequences/risks from the public, in other words the process has become almost purely political.

Markets are private actors.

Markets are collections of both individual public and private actors that are based on an aggregate of behaviors, so it's not a "private actor", it's essentially a voting mechanism for price discovery, capital allocation and the distribution of goods and services. If you prefer central planners over that then you can count me out, history is replete with the wreckage of centrally planned economies (see: The Soviet Union for further details).

So yes, you're about private actors setting interest rates. We tried that, and it gave us 25% unemployment and near brush with communism.

When did this happen absent central bankers and debt based fiat currency?

You seriously ask when the US had 25% unenemployment and a near brush with communism?

I seriously had to ask when it happened absent central bankers and debt driven fiat currency. Where you referring to some other country besides the U.S. perhaps?

We've had the greatest expansion in history under central banks setting rates.

Actually most of it happened during the Bretton Woods regime and BECAUSE of the fact that after WW II we were the only large industrialized nation that wasn't left with a smoking crater for an economy.

Correlation does not imply causation and your assertion doesn't account for opportunity costs.

The gold standard is a fiction because it acts to contract money supply at exactly the wrong time. Conservatives proved that.

Who said anything about the gold standard?

The reason we had hyper inflation in the late 70s was Nixon pressured Arthur Burns to not raise rates, and Trump is trying that right now with Kudlow leading the charge.

Says who? and if we assume for a moment that you're assertion is correct (it isn't because it's WAY too simplistic and doesn't account for a myriad of other contributing factors) aren't you pointing out one of the problems with central bankers (planners), i.e. they're subject to the whims of politics?

Trump probably has some legit complaint about unfair trade.

He does, his complaints were never the problem, it's his strategy for resolving them that is questionable.

 

[my2¢]

With inclusion of sub-components in category of raw materials, in the original list I would only switch positions of #2 and #3. Thinking about it, even limiting it to raw materials I'd do likewise.

1) A us manufacturer uses US labor & all us made raw materials

3) A Foreign company with a factor in the US that uses all US raw materials

2) A us Manufacturer using US labor but imports some raw materials.
​

Honda for example has over 624 U.S. suppliers located in 32 states

.
View attachment 202658

Source found here
​

I would agree with the components. I guess I was thinking more of steel & aluminum for raw materials.

Relating components to the raw materials is what determined my opinion, that is, once I gave consideration to the supporting tasks involved in steel production. First there is iron ore of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan's upper peninsula that needs to be mined and transported to a Great Lakes ore ship to be taken to such places as Cleveland. From there it has to be moved to where it will meet up with the coal needed for steel production. That supply of coal requires its own support. Then there is that third diamond on the Steelmark which I always forget what it represents. The infrastructure alone warrants why I place U.S. raw materials as the 2nd pick.