Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

rand.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 523 posts

Re: The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

#411

Post by kashunstva »

jopsen wrote: post #339
klooney wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The U.S. already manufactures warships, though, and we’re already by far the best at it. We very slowly build a small number of incredibly expensive ships. For any other value of "manufacturers warships", Korea or Italy are better and more reliable. Also, it's not clear if aircraft carriers are survivable in a vaguely peer context. Missiles and drones have come a long way. > Australia just cancelled a deal with Fra…

Wouldn't you be better off buying ships from allies? Nobody does everything.

> buying ships from allies

In 2025, is the word “ally” even a legitimate term in the U.S. political lexicon?

Re: The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

#412

Post by DeathArrow »

mmooss wrote: post #361
arrosenberg wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are thinking about it as an individual instead of as a state. If you put yourself in the position of Louis XVI as the King of France, it makes more sense.

I agree there's a big difference between individuals and states economically. And I understand why Louis (do you mean XIV?), in the absence any modern economic theory, pursued mercantilism. But if Louis had known modern economic theory, it would have been ridiculous. He would know that the wealthiest, most powerful nations ever on Earth - universally, with no others competing - were built on free trade.

>He would know that the wealthiest, most powerful nations ever on Earth - universally, with no others competing - were built on free trade.

It really depends on the context. Roman Empire wasn't built on free trade.

Re: The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

#413

Post by DeathArrow »

mmooss wrote: post #363
forgetfreeman wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The economy works because people make these value-increasing transactions. I take $10 of inputs, manufacture $20 worth of output, and sell it to you for $15." You pretty much nailed the arguments in favor of trade protectionism right there. Import cheap unprocessed raw materials, export expensive finished goods, capture the majority of value created in the process.

How does that support protectionism? For one thing, it involves imports and exports, which requires trading partners who will want to sell you things too. Maybe the argument for colonialism? Regardless, countries that largely operate without protectionism or colonialism have become the wealthiest in the history of the world, without any real competition. There's not much argument remaining.

>Regardless, countries that largely operate without protectionism or colonialism have become the wealthiest in the history of the world, without any real competition. There's not much argument remaining.

The wealthiest economies now are those of China and US. And both used colonialism and protectionism.

The further we look in history, the more we see most powerful economies practicing both colonialism and protectionism. From British Empire to Roman Empire.

Re: The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

#414

Post by DeathArrow »

mmooss wrote: post #362
jay_kyburz wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you build a house from scratch, you created 100K of stuff. If you buy a house for 100K then sit on your ass for a year, you are no richer than before.

You should look into real estate investment performance.

Donald Trump is a prime example.

Re: The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

#415

Post by lesuorac »

mmooss wrote: post #266
lesuorac wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an economic theory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism The general idea is that when you buy stuff you're losing wealth so if you never buy anything then you never get poorer. Since we constantly dig gold up from the ground we still get richer over time even if nobody buys our stuff. This is also why its importantly to gain colonies (Greenland/ Canada) or mineral rights from other countries so that the…

> historically very popular When? Not for a long time. Slavery and witchcraft were historically very popular ... > when you buy stuff you're losing wealth That's a incredible failure of understanding. I can't believe that's the basis of mercantilism. Why would anyone buy something? If you buy a house for $100,000, your wealth remains the same - you replace $100,000 in cash with a $100,000 house (ignoring complexities…

> > historically very popular

> When? Not for a long time. Slavery and witchcraft were historically very popular ...

The wikipedia article places it as 16th to 19th century which is a longer time period than Globalism was popular.

If the end of my post wasn't clear, I'm not a fan of Mercantilism but one does need to understand the other side. Although a big critique I have of Globalism is that the gains from trade are not evenly dispersed automatically so countries like the US really need to raise the top tax rate and increase (or at least not lower) redistribution otherwise you get high income equality.

Also, slavery and witchcraft are still practiced to this day although maybe not globally popular.

> > when you buy stuff you're losing wealth

> That's a incredible failure of understanding. I can't believe that's the basis of mercantilism. Why would anyone buy something?

Economic theories like Mercantilism are on the country level so individuals would still buy stuff because they're not practicing Mercantilism.

On the country level, yeah you don't buy stuff. If your citizens love coffee and your climate doesn't support growing coffee beans then you get a South America colony so now your climate does support growing coffee beans.

Somebody's answer to the house example is pretty good to read as well - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43630218

> Many transactions are better with people who happen to be outside the borders of your country - why wouldn't they be?

At the macro-level sure. However, if the USA had continued to practices mercantilism post-WW2 then we wouldn't have complaints about the lack of manufacturing.

The industrial plants in China would've never been built by US investment because that's literally handing money away to another country. If China doesn't have a factory its irrelevant if their labor is cheaper; the only labor with access to a factory is the USA.

Re: The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

#416

Post by pyrale »

klooney wrote: post #310
snowwrestler wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. already manufactures warships, though, and we’re already by far the best at it. Not only do we already protect our economy, we protect pretty much all shipping on the high seas by all economies on the globe. The John F Kennedy—built in the U.S.!—is in sea trials this year to become the 12th nuclear aircraft carrier in the U.S. fleet. No other nation has more than two carriers. The U.S. has more aircraft carr…

> The U.S. already manufactures warships, though, and we’re already by far the best at it. We very slowly build a small number of incredibly expensive ships. For any other value of "manufacturers warships", Korea or Italy are better and more reliable. Also, it's not clear if aircraft carriers are survivable in a vaguely peer context. Missiles and drones have come a long way. > Australia just cancelled a deal with Fra…

> Also, it's not clear if aircraft carriers are survivable in a vaguely peer context.

It's not clear if the planet is survivable in a vaguely peer context. What do you want, build a second planet and make Mexico pay for it?

Re: The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

#417

Post by DeathArrow »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #384
mmooss wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should look into real estate investment performance.

Houses depreciate. It's the land that makes you rich. :)

It's the developed land. A house built on the land you own in a city that people would kill to buy/rent there.

A house in the middle of Sahara desert is worth a negative amount.

Re: The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

#418

Post by DeathArrow »

bitmasher9 wrote: post #223
lesuorac wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an economic theory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism The general idea is that when you buy stuff you're losing wealth so if you never buy anything then you never get poorer. Since we constantly dig gold up from the ground we still get richer over time even if nobody buys our stuff. This is also why its importantly to gain colonies (Greenland/ Canada) or mineral rights from other countries so that the…

It is really effective at increasing the amount of gold in your vault, but The Wealth of Nations (Admin Smith) made a strong case against that primary goal. Crucially for the HackerNews crowd, Mercantilism increases the value of physical goods relative to services, and services becomes a smaller portion of the overall economy. Most of us sell server-time wrapped in software that performs a service…

>Most of us sell server-time wrapped in software that performs a service…

Most of us value goods more than services. We need food, we need shelter, we need a vehicle.

Re: The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

#419

Post by DeathArrow »

WalterBright wrote: post #306
bitmasher9 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is really effective at increasing the amount of gold in your vault, but The Wealth of Nations (Admin Smith) made a strong case against that primary goal. Crucially for the HackerNews crowd, Mercantilism increases the value of physical goods relative to services, and services becomes a smaller portion of the overall economy. Most of us sell server-time wrapped in software that performs a service…

Gold isn't really wealth any more than paper money is. Consider Spain, which looted S America of gold and silver. How did that work out for Spain? Spain had lots of inflation as a result, and didn't get any wealthier. The same thing happened with both the California and Yukon gold rushes. The same thing happens when the government prints lots of money. What creates wealth? People creating goods and services that peop…

>Gold isn't really wealth any more than paper money is.

Any scarce resource people want is worth very much. Be it gold or bitcoin.

You can't make gold (technically you can by transmuting elements but it will cost you more gold than the gold you will produce) but you can mine it with great cost.

Why do you think Amazon warehouse workers are payed less than Amazon coders? Because it's easier to find a warehouse worker than a coder.

What something is "worth" is dictated by the market. Which means it is dictated by the laws of supply and demand.

If we're both on a secluded island and you have 10 tons of gold and I have one hundred kilos of potatoes, my potatoes are worth more.

If we're both in NY City, my potatoes are almost worthless and you are incredibly rich.

Re: The Decline of the U.S. Machine-Tool Industry and Prospects for Recovery (1994)

#420

Post by ido »

jmward01 wrote: post #142

I keep seeing people advocating that the idea that we should build everything, and every piece or everything, here is a good one. Why? Is this just an isolationist dream? The reductive, absurd, extreme of this is why don't individual people go out and build all their own stuff like cars and houses. Let's all go out and learn how to mine and refine metal ore so we can get started on building the family sedan! There is…

The argument is war. If china and the us go to war tomorrow, the us is at an industrial disadvantage.

Does this mean you need to build “everything”? No, that would be inefficient (and probably unrealistic). But the more critical something is the “closer to home” (geopolitically speaking) it should be able to be sourced.

Buying semiconductor manufacturing equipment from Germany and the Netherlands? Fine (same for the rest of the EU, UK, Canada, Australia, etc).

Buying it from Taiwan? Probably ok but riskier cause China can impact it in the future (either by conquest, destruction or blocking access).

Buying essential equipment or resources from China, Russia or Iran? That’s a risk, long term at least. You don’t want to depend on them.

Post reply on HN