[Steve_American]

What if America Never Exported its Industry?
12.5 min.

Skip to the 11min 20 sec. mark where Whatifal this says doing so was the stupidest mistake in history,

If this was done mainly by Pres. Clinton. then he committed the stupidest mistake in history. No wonder I dislike his policies so much.
I'm a Progressive, and I demand the right to think for myself and not join a tribe.

.

[QatzelOk]

What if America Never Exported its Industry?

Whatifal this says doing so was the stupidest mistake in history,

If this was done mainly by Pres. Clinton....

President Clinton slept with gals on an airplane, which allowed the world's biggest mafias to extort him.
So we can gather that Clinton was passing the policies "he was asked to pass."

The richest billionaires in the USA got even richer by exporting their manufacturing to China and other countries. They benefitted from this. So when Clinton opened the gates, they rewarded him with "good press."

If Clinton had resisted the exporting of jobs, his sexual escapades would have "jumped into the spotlight" on the mafia's owned media (almost all of it).

So exporting jobs was SMART for billionaires, SMART for sex-crime-hiding presidents, and only STUPID for the ordinary Americans who keep voting for slick liars, and looking the other way when the mafia media intentionally misses a story.

[ckaihatsu]

So what action did Clinton take, exactly, that 'exported industry' -- ?

How is it that when the U.S. does *well* historically, it's due to 'free markets', but when a downturn happens, it's some kind of 'mismanagement' that 'never should have happened'.

Has anyone ever considered that maybe it's due to the *markets* that China picked up where the U.S. left off, in terms of industrial mass production, and that the U.S. economy was *saved* by hyper-exploited cheap Chinese labor -- ?

The opening up of China, with labour costs one thirtieth of those in the US and other major capitalist countries, provided the basis for an expansion in the mass of surplus value extracted by capital from the working class. In a recent speech hailing the virtues of globalisation, European Commissioner Peter Mandelson noted that a Chinese manufacturing firm producing an iPod receives only $4 for a device that retails for $290 in the US.

Mandelson was pointing to a process in which surplus value extracted in China is then distributed to other sections of capital in the form of license fees, rents on shopping centres, and interest to banks and financial institutions.

This relationship with China formed a kind of virtuous economic circle. Cheap manufactured goods kept down the rate of inflation, allowing the Fed to lower interest rates in the US without worrying about inflation.

Cheaper credit fueled various asset bubbles—the share market bubble, the dot.com bubble and the housing bubble—that financed the debt, while helping to sustain US consumption levels in the absence of real wage increases. At the same time, Chinese authorities invested their trade surpluses in US financial assets, in order to keep down the value of the yuan against the dollar and ensure the maintenance of export markets. This also helped keep US interest rates low and sustain the supply of cheap credit, which, in turn, sustained the asset bubbles.

In 1982 the profits of finance companies amounted to 5 percent of total corporate profits after tax. By 2007 their share had risen to 41 percent. This transformation—the financialisation of the American economy—has had vast implications for the process of capital accumulation and the growth of debt in the US economy.

In previous periods, debt was incurred by industry in order to finance its expansion. But with the growing importance of the finance sector, debt has been increasingly incurred to finance further financial activity.

The buying and selling of securities based on assets became the new road to wealth accumulation. In 1995 the dollar value of asset-backed securities stood at $108 billion. By the year 2000, at the height of the share market bubble, it was $1.07 trillion. It reached $1.1 trillion in 2005 and $1.23 trillion in 2006. In other words, in the space of a decade, the value of these securities had increased ten-fold.

In other words, the financialisation of the economy, that is, the appropriation of surplus value rather than its extraction in the production process, became the other key factor in the explosive growth of derivatives.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/12/nbe4-d23.html

The liquidation of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991 was accompanied by a wave of bourgeois triumphalism and celebrations of the “free market” around the world, which was joined by the Chinese regime.

Having already initiated the restoration of capitalism and organised the bloody repression of the working class in the Tiananmen massacre of June 1989, the regime moved, from the beginning of 1992, to integrate China more directly into the capitalist world market and make it the cheap labour platform for global capital.

In the ensuing years, this set up a so-called “virtuous” economic circle. For global corporations, the opening up of China and its cheap labour force—pay scales were at one point one thirtieth the levels in the US—provided a significant boost to profits as well as benefits for US financial markets.

In a bid to first establish and then maintain its position as the world’s premier cheap labour platform, the Chinese regime recycled the dollars it received from exports to the US and other Western markets back into the US financial system through its purchases of US Treasury bonds. This prevented the value of the renminbi from rising.

This, in turn, enabled the US Federal Reserve to maintain interest rates at historically low levels throughout the latter part of the 1990s and into the first years of the new century, in what was referred to as the “great moderation.”

Low interest rates fuelled the speculation in financial assets, land, housing, stocks, etc. that increasingly became the dominant mode of profit accumulation in the US. The financial boom and the increase in home values also helped sustain consumption spending in the US, even as real wage levels declined, providing the markets for the manufactured goods produced in China and generating further trade surpluses, which were then recycled into US Treasury bonds, keeping interest rates low.

This house of cards collapsed when the crisis in sub-prime mortgage schemes set off the US and global financial meltdown of 2008.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/0 ... s-f09.html

[Deutschmania]

So what action did Clinton take, exactly, that 'exported industry' -- ?

How is it that when the U.S. does *well* historically, it's due to 'free markets', but when a downturn happens, it's some kind of 'mismanagement' that 'never should have happened'.

Has anyone ever considered that maybe it's due to the *markets* that China picked up where the U.S. left off, in terms of industrial mass production, and that the U.S. economy was *saved* by hyper-exploited cheap Chinese labor -- ?

It's more like the People's Republic of China , with its so called " socialism with Chinese characteristics " has come to resemble Prussian socialism , such as proposed by , and to some extent existed under the National Socialists . For more information as to why exactly I am referring to , here are some articles , and videos , describing in more specific detail what German socialism had been like , and you all can decide for yourselves whether it resembles present day Communist party ruled China . https://worldaffairs.blog/2021/05/29/how-does-china-beat-usa-by-adopting-germanys-19th-century-industrial-socialism/ , https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/02/the-century-of-chinese-corporatism/

It is therefore no accident that those on the authoritarian right , such as the author of this opinion piece https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/10/corporatism-solidarity-china-thrives-america-suffers/ , advocates that the United States of America adopt such a socio- economic approach .

[Unthinking Majority]

If America never exported its industry it wouldn't be able to compete with the countries that did.

[ckaihatsu]

It's more like the People's Republic of China , with its so called " socialism with Chinese characteristics " has come to resemble Prussian socialism , such as proposed by , and to some extent existed under the National Socialists . For more information as to why exactly I am referring to , here are some articles , and videos , describing in more specific detail what German socialism had been like , and you all can decide for yourselves whether it resembles present day Communist party ruled China . https://worldaffairs.blog/2021/05/29/how-does-china-beat-usa-by-adopting-germanys-19th-century-industrial-socialism/ , https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/02/the-century-of-chinese-corporatism/ epPFw2q0dqc ITBJ0K-9aas It is therefore no accident that those on the authoritarian right , such as the author of this opinion piece https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/10/corporatism-solidarity-china-thrives-america-suffers/ , advocates that the United States of America adopt such a socio- economic approach .

Yeah, you're summing-up the paradigmatic international friction of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which led into two world wars, and this difference of nationalist organizing philosophy continues to plague us into the present ('laissez faire' vs. nationalist-corporatism).

But even this 'dichotomy' is something of a red herring anyway, since the early European colonial empires basically used nationalist-corporatism *themselves*, as with the British East India Company and the Dutch East India Company.

Incidentally, I expressed a *variation* of this formulation the other day, at another thread:

how would an appropriate 'firewall' be implemented between the interests of the private sector (for profits), and the interests of the common-good (ostensibly in the state, but certainly not necessarily).

How would that line be drawn, and how would it be maintained -- ?

viewtopic.php?p=15178775#p15178775

[Igor Antunov]

Then American corporations and industrial firms would never have grown and made as much money as they have and we would never have received as wide a variety of products and services. There's a reason the companies went abroad, America merely allowed them to do so, and helped facilitate it by forcibly taking over Japan's industrial affairs. Almost all Japanese electronics makers were forced to work with American firms. Anything less would have crippled the American firms since European and other multinationals would have gone to east Asia and other developing regions instead. In fact to compete America had to insert itself quickly into the globalized industrial scheme.

Well it turns out that was a short term solution because it necessitated the transfer of not just the industrial supply chain but also technology and investment momentum abroad since that is where all the demographic and resource benefits were, abroad. Boo hoo.

[QatzelOk]

If America never exported its industry it wouldn't be able to compete with the countries that did.

This is untrue on so many levels, that it's almost "true again."

For example, America "competes" by invading and destroying other countries. This is relatively unaffected by the exportation of textile manufacturing, toy manufacturing, or widget manufacturing.

As long as the USA continues to manufacture lots of deadly arms, it will be able to "compete" in the ways it does presently.

Though the off-shoring of tech manufacturing might end America's competitive games suddenly at some point in the near future.

[Igor Antunov]

This is untrue on so many levels, that it's almost "true again."

For example, America "competes" by invading and destroying other countries. This is relatively unaffected by the exportation of textile manufacturing, toy manufacturing, or widget manufacturing.

As long as the USA continues to manufacture lots of deadly arms, it will be able to "compete" in the ways it does presently.

Though the off-shoring of tech manufacturing might end America's competitive games suddenly at some point in the near future.

Times have changed.

[ckaihatsu]

As long as the USA continues to manufacture lots of deadly arms, it will be able to "compete" in the ways it does presently.

The ongoing imperialist militarism maintains the U.S. privilege of having the world's reserve currency:

A reserve currency (or anchor currency) is a foreign currency that is held in significant quantities by central banks or other monetary authorities as part of their foreign exchange reserves. The reserve currency can be used in international transactions, international investments and all aspects of the global economy. It is often considered a hard currency or safe-haven currency.

The United Kingdom's pound sterling was the primary reserve currency of much of the world in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century.[1] However, by the end of the 20th century, the United States dollar had become the world's dominant reserve currency.[2] The world's need for dollars has allowed the United States government to borrow at lower costs, giving the United States an advantage in excess of $100 billion per year.[3][4][5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency

[QatzelOk]

The ongoing imperialist militarism maintains the U.S. privilege of having the world's reserve currency:

Thick as Thieves: "Yes, you have fabricated a lot of useful things with your grubby little hands.

But before you can buy or sell anything, you little twit, you need to *buy* some of my bankster cash (you can pay me with merchandise) so that you can participate in the game of international commerce that me and my boys *protect*..."

[Unthinking Majority]

This is untrue on so many levels, that it's almost "true again."

For example, America "competes" by invading and destroying other countries. This is relatively unaffected by the exportation of textile manufacturing, toy manufacturing, or widget manufacturing.

As long as the USA continues to manufacture lots of deadly arms, it will be able to "compete" in the ways it does presently.

Though the off-shoring of tech manufacturing might end America's competitive games suddenly at some point in the near future.

If the US manufactured the goods its companies design/sell it wouldn't be able to compete with other countries that offshore manufacturing. America didn't invade and destroy China, in fact it's the opposite.

[QatzelOk]

If the US manufactured the goods its companies design/sell it wouldn't be able to compete with other countries that offshore manufacturing.

If the USA manufactured the products it needs, it wouldn't need to invade so many countries to enforce its fake currency on all countries for all transactions. This is the central scam of the post-WW2 era - the USA dollar obligation for a currency that other nations must BUY.

Secondly, what other countries "that offshored manufacturing" is the USA forced to compete with (by not having its own manufacturing base)?

Can you name one of these mysterious *off-shoring competitors*?

[Unthinking Majority]

Secondly, what other countries "that offshored manufacturing" is the USA forced to compete with (by not having its own manufacturing base)?

Can you name one of these mysterious *off-shoring competitors*?

Every single other country in the world.

How much would an iPhone cost if it was manufactured in the USA vs the price of a Samsung phone? How well did American car companies compete when countries started offshoring manufacturing en masse, and would they still be in business had the US not offshored many those jobs eventually?

We live in a global marketplace and no country can hide from it.

[Crantag]

Yeah, Apple is about the worst example one could name of a company which is constrained by the rigors of market competition.

@Unthinking Majority, it is important to be able to recognize the distinction between a product like an Apple 'smart' 'device' (I could elaborate much on the why, but I'm trying to be concise) and, let's say, construction nails manufactured in Mexico which are cheaper than those construction nails manufactured in Kentucky.

Some reasons why Apple is a terrible example of a competitive company is that, for instance, a) They have cultivated a captive market (their position is essentially monopolistic, for all intents and purposes); b) The manufacturing industry for 'smart' 'devices' is highly sophisticated, occupied by a small number of players; and each player's 'products' are chalk-a-block with propriety components and other elements (another massive strike against notions of competitiveness--but Apple is of course the most special case, given again their captive market).

The price of Apple phones has virtually no connection (and probably literally no connection) to the cost of producing the phones. The decisions with respect to the Apple supply chain (and everything else--corporate tax [avoidance] strategy, etc. etc. etc.) are based merely on the logic of profit maximization, and nothing else. As a monopolist, Apple is especially poised to grab the 'stakeholders' (a ridiculous and stupid word among all the other ridiculous and stupid 'economics jargon') by the balls, and squeeze them with no mercy, until they are manually milked dry.

That is why Apple is one of the richest companies now. Tails like this can be told of the other big tech monopolies of course, though each tail with its own unique plot and peculiarities.


So in short, no, Apple is not an example of a company which is confronted by international market competition.

[Crantag]

(double post.)

[Unthinking Majority]

Some reasons why Apple is a terrible example of a competitive company is that, for instance, a) They have cultivated a captive market (their position is essentially monopolistic, for all intents and purposes); b) The manufacturing industry for 'smart' 'devices' is highly sophisticated, occupied by a small number of players; and each player's 'products' are chalk-a-block with propriety components and other elements (another massive strike against notions of competitiveness--but Apple is of course the most special case, given again their captive market).

Apple has no monopoly on anything. They sell smartphones and tablets and computers and software. They compete with Samsung, Dell, HP, Microsoft etc. who sell virtually the exact same products. There's literally nothing they produce that doesn't have an equivalent somewhere in the market.

[Crantag]

Apple has no monopoly on anything. They sell smartphones and tablets and computers and software. They compete with Samsung, Dell, HP, Microsoft etc. who sell virtually the exact same products. There's literally nothing they produce that doesn't have an equivalent somewhere in the market.

Your problem is that you lack the understanding of the economics concept of 'monopoly'.

A company in effect has 'monopoly power' when it is not bound by competition (these are relative considerations, everything is on a spectrum).

Apple has, to repeat, cultivated a captive market. This has been their entire business model from the start.

Android 'devices' are very far from perfectly substitutable with apple 'devices'.

The entire cell phone industry is itself rather oligopolistic, but given Apple's model (and success in implementing their model over the years and decades), they exert a particularly high degree of market power.

In the context of theoretical economics, companies which exert monopoly power are much less constrained by market forces, like the influence of demand and supply on setting prices. To the contrary, monopolists maximize profits by in effect constraining supply so as to attain a higher price.

Your lack of understanding of the monopoly power of Apple notwithstanding, I stand by every word of my above post, and this post, in which I maintain that I used concepts which were both deliberate and accurate.

[ckaihatsu]

If the US manufactured the goods its companies design/sell it wouldn't be able to compete with other countries that offshore manufacturing.

If the USA manufactured the products it needs, it wouldn't need to invade so many countries to enforce its fake currency on all countries for all transactions. This is the central scam of the post-WW2 era - the USA dollar obligation for a currency that other nations must BUY.

Secondly, what other countries "that offshored manufacturing" is the USA forced to compete with (by not having its own manufacturing base)?

Can you name one of these mysterious *off-shoring competitors*?

Gentlemen.

The U.S. *doesn't compete* in manufacturing, both because [1] it can't, and [2] it doesn't have to.

It's been outperformed by Japan and China, etc., but that's beside the point because who the hell wants to handle blue-collar shit, anyway -- really.

The U.S. has been benefitting *financially* from its virtual *colonization* of China over the past few decades and it's only recently that China has gotten economically strong enough to edge away from that exploitative relationship (it's burgeoning 'middle class', etc.).

Also both economies are overextended and stalling, anyway, so there's that.

[QatzelOk]

The U.S. *doesn't compete* in manufacturing, both because [1] it can't, and [2] it doesn't have to.

It doesn't have to manufacture anything, as long as it can force other countries to manufacture things for it. This is conditional and not an eternal fact.

only recently that China has gotten economically strong enough to edge away from that exploitative relationship (it's burgeoning 'middle class', etc.).

And this is exactly the type of development that could make the USA suddenly need to manufacture things. Its ecomomic relationship with the rest of the world is a temporary one built on an international monetary scam.

If the world becomes fractured, this would crash the USA economy in a huge way, and Western Finance-ruled nations would be stuck with huge piles of worthless paper money, while the slave-state "trade partners" would be left with piles of iPhones, wrist watches, and shoes - that are useful.


.