Agree; the nationality of a company is almost irrelevant. Who cares if Shell is Dutch, BP is British, Total is French, Norelco (Philips) is Dutch, Electrolux is Swedish, etc.
All companies must adhere to US government business rules while operating in the US. Back in the late 60s a French economist, Jean Jaques Servan Schreiber wrote a book called “The American Challenge”. It was about the inroads US companies were making into The European Common Market, by building plants and taking advantage of the new economies of scale there. He was not a scaremonger, but wrote the book to challenge European companies to become more International (global).
US unions complained to the government when imports car sales started to grow. The government responded with pressure to get foreign companies to set up plants in the US, which they did with a vengeance. The rest is history. Now the unions complain that Korea and Japan are not buying enough cars from us (joke)!
Manufacturing will find the best and lowest cost source of supply; China, Korea and Thailand are reliable areas of supply for high quality products. Japan is too of course, but now only for preimum products. Russia could be, but the poor work ethic, substandard management practices and other shortcomings preclude it from conmpeting on high quality, low priced consumer products.
Just my point…additional regulation is NOT needed. What is needed is regulation inforcement which is NOT occurring. The professed “libertarion” point of view is silent when it comes to defining national security as proper regulation of foreign investment. To view FI as just another source of capital is a naive view of the world today as with investment comes control. China gets away with regulatory constraint on our part because it IS a major capital investor.
The major source of terrorist funding nation in the world, Saudie Arabia is allowed economic freedom that Cuba is not because of it’s energy/financial strangle hold on us and others…So please don’t preach that regulatory control is unneeded. People will suffer…and not of their own choosing here in the NE because of lack of energy regulation.
I still don’t understand what you are proposing. The U.S. government has no authority to control investment in private companies. They can prevent U.S. based companies from doing business with some countries (i.e., cuba), but they can’t stop them from establishing businesses elsewhere and trading with those countries. Many multinationals have subsidiaries established to avoid having to follow the rules of their “home” countries. Many “american companies” are actually subsidiaries of “foreign companies,” over which the U.S. government has absolutely no influence. The U,S. government has very limited authority (fortunately), they can only regulate activities that take place on their soil and regulate business within the U.S. If they tried to do more, these companies would simply relocate to another part of the world with a more favorable regulatory climate (as they should).
I’m not a fan of Saudie Arabia, but the U.S. government has no authority over their “economic freedom.” If the U.S. wanted to prevent U.S. companies from dealing with Saudie Arabia (like cuba), it would be very easy to use third parties to continue business as usual. The “american companies” would simply do business through intermediate countries or set up subsidiaries in countries that did not recognize the U.S. “boycott.” Fortunately, national governments just don’t have that kind of power over private industry. I guess the U.S. government could refuse to allow any oil from Saudie Arabia to be imported, but that would just result in that oil being “exchanged” for oil from elsewhere before being imported (probably resulting in higher prices in the U.S.).
Regarding NE, people there are simply paying market prices for energy. Part of the reason that energy is expensive in that part of the country is lack of local production (and some pretty hefty taxes). If you don’t want refineries or power stations in your part of the country, you are going to pay a premium to import energy from elsewhere. If you want cheaper energy, create some incentives and encourage companies to build more local production; otherwise they are going to invest elsewhere. If you create more regulation, you will discourage investment and energy costs will increase (along with the profits of the existing providers). If you try to regulate prices, you will not get additional investment and you will have shortages. No one is obligated to sell cheap energy in NE, they are only there to make a profit. Would you prefer to have government run utilities?
I agree, the only solution is a free market. The more a country tries to protect itself with economic isolation, the further behind they will get. The only solution is to try to find the value added products/services that you can use to compete successfully. Failure to do that will always result in a trade deficit and a currency devaluation. Clearly, the U.S. is not going to win in the areas of oil or manufactured goods, so they need to be selling next generation technology to the rest of the world. We don’t want to make cheaper widgets to sell at walmart, we want to sell a next generation factory to china and let them do the low value added work. I also think the U.S. needs to change its energy mix to minimize the import of oil and buy some time to get its act together.
The U.S. was really spoiled after WW2 when they were the only industrial country left intact and were able to call the shots. Of course they attributed that to the “productivity” of the american workers instead of that fact that the rest of the industrial world had be bombed to smithereens for the previous 5 years. That only worked until japan and europe finally recovered in the 70s, but the U.S. still seems to think it’s a wage issue. Hopefully they will catch on sooner than later.
The US is still a world leader in very spohisticated electronics, aerospace, weapons of all kinds, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, heavy construction and farm equipment, nuclear power, software, rock and country music, television programs (world’s largest exporter), movies, and, of course, low cost agricultural products.
These have to generate enough export revenue to offset all the imports, from oil, to TVs to luxury cars to photographic equipment, to clothes, etc.
The only hope at this time is to back out oil imports through downsizing cars, developing more domestic conventional and alternate sources. That $350-$400 billion per year will go a long way to cutting the $850 billion deficit at the moment. Of course, bringing the troops home will have an even bigger immediate impact.
If Richard Nixon was in the White House today, he would probably put a severe curb on manufactured imports in the name of national security, which would drive up the cost of living for all Americans.
Exactly, and the other half of the equation is maintaining the lead in those high value added items you listed. If the U.S. fails to stay “ahead of the curve” on those products/services, they will not have anything to offset the products that will be continued to be imported (even if oil consumption is reduced). Ideally, the deficit will eventually reach $0.00 based on the U.S. continuing to win market share in those areas. The related challenge is to train the next generation of american workers to succeed in maintaining that advantage, especially with the continued decline of the manufacturing sector.
The US is still a world leader in very spohisticated electronics, aerospace, weapons of all kinds, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, heavy construction and farm equipment, nuclear power, software, rock and country music, television programs (world’s largest exporter), movies, and, of course, low cost agricultural products.
The operative word there is “STILL”.
Software is leading the way in high-tech jobs that’s being farmed out to India and China. And DOD contractors are farming out electronics and software to other countries. Foreign companies like Hyundai and Kuboto are already making major headroads into farm equipment.
I don’t want to think what things will be like in 10 years.
Yup, software and most electronics are now old technology and will be done cheaper elsewhere (much of software development is now like manufacturing and can be done anyplace by technically competent people). Farm equipment is ancient technology. The U.S. needs to be working on the next new thing, not trying to hold onto the last “new” technology. In ten years the U.S. should be selling the next current technology to the rest of the world (just the technology, not the actual products) and working on the technology after that; either that or we all will be living elsewhere if we still want to be in the game.
I’m done living in the industrial age, who wants to repeat the same task more than once? Let someone else do that for a while. As Friedman said, if you want job security, find something to do that isn’t “portable.” Either that, or start packing your bags to go where the action is. It will be fun, I hope I’m around for a while to participate.
We used to be THE world leader. Now that we are ranked 37 th in health care, we can still sit on our duffs and tell each other how great we are we the few years we have left. It’s now a matter of keeping pace. We do make and sell the best weaponry. This is a critical time not to be left to chance or the highest bidder. Infrastructure and education need immediate attention and corp. America needs guidance on true patriotism.
Germany has the world’s higest labor costs, followed by Switserland and Japan not far behind. Germany is also still the world’s largest EXPORTER; that tells you something. The Germans and thew Swiss sell premium quality and higher priced products, while Japn can still sell high quality competively priced products, but is losing its price edge on consumer products coming from China, Thailand, Malaysia, Taiwan and Korea.
At the height of the Industrial revolution, Britain was the undisputed world leader in all things industrial and scientific. Otto von Bismarck, the German Chancellor was green with envy and set out to equal and eventually displace Britain. He, of course, forgot that the US, that upstart country, was an extremely fast learner, and immediately improved on British inventions, such as steel making, mechanical weaving, mechanized agriculture, railroad technology, etc.
The Germans eventually overtook the British in technology and efficiency, and Britain is the first country to basically de-industrialize; relying on banking,services, trade, tourism and culture to make its way in the world.
In the US today, more people are probably employed in sales and related activities than in manufacturing.
The other part of the problem is building nuclear power plants that run 1600% over and the power company raises rates to cover it.
True, but we’ll do better next time. (-;
Seriously, if NH had been deregulated at the time, the rate-payers would not have been stuck with that cost, seabrook would have had to compete with the other regional generators and the investors would have taken the hit. There is no incentive to control cost or meet schedule in a fully regulated environment because all the costs are recoverable.
“Would you prefer to have government run utilities?”
Yep !
Not so much; I spend a fair amount of my time contracting to government agencies, they are not exactly the model of efficiency. You will end up spending more and getting less, and you will have even less to say about the process. If you have and canadian friends, ask them; or just look at the TVA.
“In the US today, more people are probably employed in sales and related activities than in manufacturing.”
And now manufacturing is on the rise. Foreign companies can’t buy or build manufacturing capacity in the USA fast enough. Steel plants are running near capacity and making lots of money. Most traditionally foreign auto manufacturers make at least one model in the USA. You were right before the dollar tanked, but times have changed.
Yup, no one is going to win by trying to compete with the developing world on price. I suspect that japan will keep trying to go upscale to avoid the competition. I don’t know where the U.S. will fit in this equation, but it needs to find a spot near the top.
Good luck with that. “Corporate america” will do nothing but act in it’s own best interest. It is not their responsibility to take up the slack for government who can’t seem to provide basic services (e.g., health care) for it’s citizens. Private industry needs to pay attention to business and grow the economy, that will increase the tax base and allow the government to do it’s job.
“Not so much; I spend a fair amount of my time contracting to government agencies, they are not exactly the model of efficiency. You will end up spending more and getting less, and you will have even less to say about the process. If you have and canadian friends, ask them; or just look at the TVA.”
And just look at the cost of private contractors in the military…a revolving door of profiteers. In the years I spent in govt. service, efficiency was not as you say outstanding, but motivation and accountability was and stood for more than the profit motive, which often left the public ill served. As frustrated as we were at govt. bureaucracy, the corp. greed alternative which ran parallel services to us (medical corps) resulted in delays and unacceptable public suffering. Refusal of service because of profit considerations was unconscionable. Providing energy is now a matter of national security and providers should be held more accountable.
PS…we do have Canadian friends and they would not trade their public HC system for our private system if their life depended upon it…which it does. We are not well informed by the subjective opinions of how poorly another counties govt. control agency is compared to our private system.
I was referring to Canada’s public electrical utility system, not their health care. I don’t have a problem with public health care, that is a legitimate function of government IMO.
Just for the sake of argument, lets assume all electrical utilities were nationalized. Do you think the government agency (probably DOE) would actually run them? That is not how they do business, they go out for bids for a M&I (management and integration) contractor who would charge a healthy fee for administrating a large collection of other contractors and sub-contractors who actually operate the facilities. This arrangement is very profitable for all the contractors (I’ve worked under these contracts with DOE), but it is incredibly inefficient and expensive. The DOE personnel are not capable of providing oversight, not enough qualified people, and the various contractor have raised infighting to an art form. I have never seen so much money spent with nothing to show for it, but everyone is very well paid. This is a world where everyone has to spend their entire annual budget by a certain date so they can increase their next year’s budget. In the private sector, folks would probably go to prison for some of this activity.
In a perfect world, a government agency would do a better job in the interest of public service than a private company would do in the interest of profits. In the real world, the government agencies cannot attract the right people to do the jobs themselves (due to their pay scales and all their other government employee non-sense) and end up contracting work out to other private companies that don’t even have a profit motive to work efficiently; but they sure do know how to work the government procurement system. In addition, the government employees frequently end up working for the contractor they are overseeing. It’s probably not as corrupt as the DOD contracting system (what is?), but it’s pretty bad. Sorry if I’m too cynical, but the system really does suck.
At the end of the day, I’ll go with private industry and a straight profit motive, at least everyone is honest about why they are doing the job; if they don’t deliver energy, they don’t get paid. If providing energy is really matter of national security, get the local governments out of the way and build some more domestic production and distribution capacity.