Correlation between NAFTA & goods production within the

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:37 pm

I was watching a pretty interesting documentary on hbo today called "'Schmatta: Rags to Riches to Rags." It's the story of the garment industry in America (NYC particularly.)

They started talking about how after 1965, the production of clothing inside America started to fall by the decade.

It was first Kennedy who allowed 4% of goods to produced outside the country, and then Nixon in the '70s who expanded that. Reagan came after that with less governmental interference and strike busting of the air traffic controller strike. They finally pointed out that the NAFTA trade agreement with Clinton was pretty much the end of large-scale consumer good production within American soil. As in it put the nail in the coffin according to one of the interviewees.

So what's so essential about the NAFTA agreement that completely negates American consumer good production?

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:09 pm

Free enterprise.

Businesses can seek cheaper labor and reduced costs and still sell goods int he US for companies in the US.

Why GM sent all the work to MExico to bring the cars back to the US.

They can sell the cars for the same price int he US, and cut costs to about 20% without reducing prices, and make a LOT more money.

OH wait! GM went bankrupt and Obama bought it, so that shit must not work.

America makes nothing anymore. It just fights over money, so it can buy things made elsewhere.

Correction. America makes money. It makes no other products.

Even the Kathy Lee Gifford, Olsen Twin, and Miley Cyrus sweatshops are in China for their clothing lines, as well as everything else.

Since it is an American product that is just made overseas, it doesn't have to be taxed high for bringing it in the country to sell, so clothes made elsewhere are much cheaper within areas of poorer living conditions and lower wages.

So that one factory in China that makes jeans, makes not only the Kmart brands, but designer brands as well and just puts different labels on them so they can make more money for Goldman Sachs.

OR were you discussing just fashion industry and production, and not the entire corrupt system?

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:17 pm

That stuff isn't even close to true. You know what one of China's biggest imports is? Engines. From where? The US.

Anyway, the reality is that unless you're working on things that require highly skilled labour (like engines), you move your manfacturing to places that have lots of cheap unskilled labour.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:20 pm

Sorry, but GM and VW have plants in Mexico to make engines and ship them TO the US.

Also China has clean rooms where computer parts are made on a daily basis.

Engines are made mostly by robots that bore things out. It doesn't take much skills to bolt things together, and humans are too slow are making the parts for engines.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:36 pm

You know most engines' arn't car engines right?

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:15 am

China is importing lawn mower engines for all those lawns they have in the desert areas thanks to drought and global warming, and those low rent apartments that have no yards?

They get ship engines from Norway like everyone else.

Cell phones and "mobile devices" don't use engines just yet...but the new iPhone is supposed to be able to sweep your floor, have an automatic shaver, and mow your lawn for you with all the other trash built into it. They might have to change the name, because all the additions will not leave room for the phone feature anymore....

But I shouldn't have thought just cars.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:52 am

Yes, the US exports very large industrial engines for things like planes, trains and trucks the size of buildings. They're very expensive. But they are very few in number.

-Crissa

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:59 am

Some, but so do other places. Rolls Royce for example for planes is not made int he US...I don't think.

Heavy loaders are not made to have to ship overseas.

Trains are becoming less engine related as technology progresses and are made closer to home.

US is loosing all industrial facets in the workforce because it is being moved or just made elsewhere.

That is why we currently have a 17.8% unemployment rate.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:03 am

You'd be surprised at the volume of shipments of engines in particular to china - it's because the chinese are assembling imported goods and have a huge demand for industrial machinery, most of which comes from Germany and the US. The US and Germany are still the leading manufacturers of high quality engineering products, in fields from RF engineering, Satcomms to medical products.

Staying their requires constantly moving forward and innovating.

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:35 am

cthulhu: I think the argument being made is that the percentage of goods produced has drastically gone down. Of course, this is the point of globalization in a way, you don't have one centralized node of production.

Also, "schmatta..." looks at what might be called joe-public goods. In this documentary's case that would be clothes. Things like engines and such are often not the end-user product. THey belong in something.

So does the U.S make any end-user product in which it also provides for itself.

That is also another point of "schmatta..." in 1965 - 95% of garments used in the States were made in the States. That isn't the case anymore.

Obviously, if jet engines and stuff are made in the U.S, their end users are, probably, international companies like AIRBUS, international military economies and such. This is jsut speculation as I don't have any facts aside from what you guys have given me at this point.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:48 am

Don't forget also that the US/GM just recently sold Hummer brand to China. This means they will be made where, and for who in regards to military vehicles, and/or what replaced them for the US?

And like Cynic said, what do we make here in the US for Americans?

Most of the things I own still say made in China/Taiwan/Hong Kong/Mexico.

Look at it like this as well. The natural resources found in the US are being sent elsewhere. Not recycling the WTC and all that metal but just scrapping it means it will go to waste.

How much longer can we make things and sell elsewhere before we have to buy everything form other people since America is so pathetic at recycling ANYTHING.

Maybe people should buy and start mining old landfills for materials for things. Clean them up and the land and reclaim those resources and make something with them. Then turn those vast swatches of land into safe areas, and plant things there. If not food, how about trees? Lumber for homes, paper for printers and books, of just for air to breathe?

How much resources does US have left to sell to other places before we are dependent on everyone else for ANYTHING, including food and water?

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 5:19 am

shadzar wrote:Not recycling the WTC and all that metal but just scrapping it means it will go to waste.

How much longer can we make things and sell elsewhere before we have to buy everything form other people since America is so pathetic at recycling ANYTHING.

Obviously you haven't heard about this.

I'm more curious about the answer rather than the result personally. There isn't anything wrong in being a country that has a more esoteric product than something concrete and touchable such as clothes or tin cans.

It's just why and the how that intrigue me.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 5:32 am

"Answer than result" of what?

Also that link returns "Page Not Found".

When a country doesn't make "things" for people to buy, then they are going to have problems. More people can be employed and live off of making "things". Tangible objects as it were.

Look at America in what it makes best...money. But how do people make use of that? You cannot buy it, you cannot eat it, you cannot acquire what is made if money is the only thing made in a country. Wall Street has proven that.

Gelare · Post by **Gelare** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:20 am

Cynic wrote:It's just why and the how that intrigue me.

I'm not honestly sure what the question is, but I get the distinct feeling that the answer is comparative advantage.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:29 am

shadzar wrote:Don't forget also that the US/GM just recently sold Hummer brand to China. This means they will be made where, and for who in regards to military vehicles, and/or what replaced them for the US?

That only affects the retail vehicles, which cost far less and were only styled to look like the military vehicle. It's basically a licensing deal.

-Crissa

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:52 am

http://www.ussnewyork.com/ -- here that's a better link.

It was more of a response to not using the WTC steel. it is being used just at an exceptionally slow rate and maybe for things that might not be useful.

Also on a specific note: the USS new york is a fvcking PR boat as it is made from WTC steel and was made partially on a new orleans wharf.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:20 am

There's tons of excess steel on the market right now. So there's reasons why it hasn't been used up.

-Crissa

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 9:18 am

Cynic wrote: http://www.ussnewyork.com/ -- here that's a better link.

It was more of a response to not using the WTC steel. it is being used just at an exceptionally slow rate and maybe for things that might not be useful.

Also on a specific note: the USS new york is a fvcking PR boat as it is made from WTC steel and was made partially on a new orleans wharf.

Oh goody more toys for McKrystal to want from Obama.

How many house could have been made form that steel for people that are getting evicted under the economy, and how many building sin say NEW ORLEANS, could have used that stel to rebuild them or make a levy or something to prevent future floods os such nature like what might come still during this hurricane season and the feller in the Gulf right now?

Thanks for the link. I hadn't heard about the USS Goldman Sachs yet. What? New York, is owned by them like everything else!

Now if only they would recycle other things that PEOPLE could use, rather than a floating museum.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:23 pm

Oh fucking cry me a river. "In 2007, total world crude steel production was 1,351.3 million metric tonnes (mmt). The biggest steel producing country is currently China, which accounted for 36.6% of world steel production in 2007." The United States produced 98.1 million metric tonnes in 2007 and and 91.4 million metric tonnes in 2008 and you are whining about 7.5 tons?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:40 pm

7.5 million tonnes, you mean :p

But still, sparechange.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:12 pm

Koumei wrote:7.5 million tonnes, you mean

7.5 million METRIC tons.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:45 pm

"The USS NEW YORK (LPD 21), built with 7.5 tons of steel from the World Trade Center in her bow" Doesn't say millions. It's a token amount of steel that is used in her bow and that's it. "7.5 short tons (6.8 t) of the steel used in the ship's construction came from the rubble of the World Trade Center, this represents less than one thousandth of the total weight of the ship."

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 5:07 pm

Yeah, I always judge a masthead by its size relative to the size of the ship.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:03 am

Whoops, I wasn't paying enough attention and just read:

The United States produced 98.1 million metric tonnes in 2007 and and 91.4 million metric tonnes in 2008

Of course, that's not a difference of 7.5, but as I said, I wasn't paying attention.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:47 am

Cynic wrote:cthulhu: I think the argument being made is that the percentage of goods produced has drastically gone down. Of course, this is the point of globalization in a way, you don't have one centralized node of production.

Yeah, that's not it either. What's happened is that low skill manufacturing has been outsourced to places where it doesn't matter that the work force is low skilled. Which is why clothes have gone and Ossiliscopes have mostly stayed. Heck even something as comparatively simple audio hardware is so difficult to outsource into China that only one pro-audio manufacturer has successfully outsourced to china, and they almost torpedo'd their brand in the process due to reliability and quality issues.

Also, "schmatta..." looks at what might be called joe-public goods. In this documentary's case that would be clothes. Things like engines and such are often not the end-user product. THey belong in something.

So does the U.S make any end-user product in which it also provides for itself.

Very few studio mics are manufacturing in china for example, almost all are made in Germany and the US. Similarly for studio quality headphones (exception: the single sony studio quality headphone is manufactured in china and only serves a small market segment. It is also well priced and highly recommended)

Obviously, if jet engines and stuff are made in the U.S, their end users are, probably, international companies like AIRBUS, international military economies and such. This is jsut speculation as I don't have any facts aside from what you guys have given me at this point.

The majority of all aerospace engineering is conducted in the US. However, this is partly because the governments pay significant incentives for it to be that way.