"The Globally Integrated Enterprise"

An email says:

You might wish to discuss this article on your blog. The article traces the development of MNC’s up to the present. It is a celebration of the MNCs and their positive impact on globalization.

Unfortunately, Palisiano (CEO of IBM) does not address the issue of corporate power in distorting the market place and in controlling governments themselves (think K Street). Nor does he seriously address the rising global inequality of wealth (think sweat shop labor).

Nor does he address the issue of global warming, environmental decay, and resource depletion—and the ability of MNC’s to cast doubt on the seriousness of these issues. All of these issues are the dark underside of globalization, on which I tend to focus. He frames the discussion in such a way as to avoid these issues—most economists follow his lead.

Anyway, the article is worth discussing. Most economists would agree with Palisano. ...

I'm a bit rushed until much later today and can't do much with this, so, quickly, here's the beginning and end of the article along with a link to the whole thing. Hopefully, some of you can provide analysis:

The Globally Integrated Enterprise, by Samuel J. Palmisano, Foreign Affairs: Beyond Multinational The multinational corporation (MNC), often seen as a primary agent of globalization, is taking on a new form, one that is promising for both business and society. From a business perspective, this new kind of enterprise is best understood as “global” rather than “multinational.”

The corporation has evolved constantly during its long history. The MNC of the late twentieth century had little in common with the international firms of a hundred years earlier, and those companies were very different from the great trading enterprises of the 1700s. The type of business organization that is now emerging—the globally integrated enterprise—marks just as big a leap.

Many parties to the globalization debate mistakenly project into the future a picture of corporations that is unchanged from that of today or yesterday. This happens as often among free-market advocates as it does among people opposed to globalization. But businesses are changing in fundamental ways—structurally, operationally, culturally—in response to the imperatives of globalization and new technology. ... I believe that rather than continuing to focus on past models, regulators, scholars, nongovernmental organizations, community leaders, and business executives would be best served by thinking about the global corporation of the future and its implications for new approaches to regulation, education, trade, and commerce.

...

Global Collaboration The spread of shared technologies and business standards is creating an unprecedented opportunity for further global integration, not just within each sector of society, but across them all. ... Government leaders will find in business willing partners to reform health care and education, secure the world’s trade lanes and electronic commerce, train and enable the displaced and dispossessed, grapple with environmental problems and infectious diseases, and tackle the myriad other challenges that globalization raises.

Among the most urgent of the challenges facing emergent global institutions in all spheres of society is global security and order. Without them, nothing is possible. Companies will only invest in global systems of production if they believe that the geopolitical relationships that enable their investments will be stable and lasting. ...

One promising trend toward greater global stability is the growth of horizontal, intergovernmental networks among the world’s regulators and legislators. Built on shared professional standards and relationships among cross-national communities of experts, these networks are interesting analogues to new forms of organizing work in business, such as globally integrated supply chains, commercial “ecosystems,” and open-source communities.

The alternative to global integration is not appealing. Left unaddressed, discontent with globalization will only grow. People might ultimately choose to elect governments that impose strict regulations on trade or labor, perhaps of a highly protectionist sort. Worse, they might gravitate toward more extreme forms of nationalism, xenophobia, and antimodernism. The shift from MNCs to globally integrated enterprises provides an opportunity to advance both business growth and societal progress. But it raises issues that are too big and too interconnected for business alone or government alone to solve.

The globally integrated enterprise is a promising new actor on the world stage. Now leaders in business, government, education, and all of civil society must learn about its emerging dynamics and help it mature in ways that will contribute to social, economic, and human progress around the planet.

Comments

[Peter Schaeffer]

Is this mindless propaganda or what…

“The globally integrated enterprise is a promising new actor on the world stage. Now leaders in business, government, education, and all of civil society must learn about its emerging dynamics and help it mature in ways that will contribute to social, economic, and human progress around the planet.”

For a saner view, check out what Brad Setser has to say over at RGE Monitor has to say (actually quoting Stephen Roach). From Roach on globalization and China .

“There can be no mistaking the intensity of the angst bearing down on the American workforce. I suspect something else may be at work here. As I have noted previously, at present, there is an extraordinary disparity between the capital and labor shares of US national income (see my 8 January dispatch, “The Power Shift”). The profits share currently stands at a 50-year high of 12.4%, whereas the labor compensation is just 56.3% -- back to levels last seen on a sustained basis in the late 1960s.”

Neither Roach nor Setser mentions it, but the increase in wage/salary inequality is considerably more significant than the rise in the profits share of GDP. Both are driven by two sides of globalization undermining the American Dream, “free” trade and Open Borders. Why the happy talk about how wonderful everything is when our country is accumulating debt at a rate of billions per day? A quote from Setser should help.

“In my view, this underscores a key element of tension in America’s current backlash against globalization that was not evident in the late 1980s. Today, the pressures are being borne disproportionately by labor, whereas 20 years ago, capital and labor were in the struggle together. In the late 1980s, many of the once proud icons of Corporate America were fighting for competitive survival at the same time that US workers were feeling the heat of global competition. The pain was, in effect, balanced. Today, US companies, as seen through the lens of corporate profitability, are thriving as never before while the American workforce is increasingly isolated in its competitive squeeze. In essence, capital and labor are working very much at cross purposes in the current climate, whereas back in the late 1980s they were both in the same boat.”

Basically, Globalization 2.0 has co-opted corporate America (and the wealthy in general, think of cheap nannies as a class privilege) in way that makes it very hard for our nation to set itself right. How well can America oppose the rigging of the RMB/Dollar exchange rate what that rate makes corporate investment in China / outsourcing highly profitable?

[Movie Guy]

Samuel J. Palmisano, published in Foreign Affairs - "The most visible signs of this change can be seen in China and India. By one estimate, between 2000 and 2003 alone, foreign firms built 60,000 manufacturing plants in China. Some of these factories target the local Chinese market, but others target the global market. European chemical companies, Japanese carmakers, and U.S. industrial conglomerates are all building (or have declared their intention to build) factories in China to supply export markets around the world. Similarly, banks, insurance companies, professional-service firms, and it companies are building R & D and service centers in India to support employees, customers, and production worldwide."

60,000 new manufacturing plants in four years !!!!

Translation: Offshoring and Economic Hydrology Theory are alive and well.

[evagrius]

Sounds like old-style feudalism dressed in high-tech.

[Lafayette]

Palmisano: "Sustainable competitive advantage has never come only from productivity or inventiveness. Today more than ever, the premium comes from the fusion of invention and insight into how to transform how things are done. Real innovation is about more than the simple
creation and launching of new products. It is also about how services are delivered, how business processes are integrated, how companies and institutions are managed, how knowledge is transferred, how public policies are formulated—and how enterprises, communities, and societies participate in and benefit from it all."

I suspect this is the heart of the document. It must be interpreted in view of the fact that IBM is becoming less of a hardware company and more of business consulting firm.

In this sense, its consulting services business tries to convince clients that the leverage of competition revolves around reengineering their business processes ... using high-tech solutions of course.

As much as Palmisano would like to believe this is something new in the world of globalization, it is hardly the case. Other consulting companies where knocking bits and pieces of high-tech solutions together to create purpose-built systems for clients.

Whether this changes or innovates globalization per se, well, I tend to think not. Globalization is an evolution and not a revolution of business processes - if multinational have changed over the centuries it has always been for sound business reasons.

I doubt they will give a fig about either the environment or inequality (brought about by dislocating jobs to the lowest-cost country) unless either customers insist of governments regulate or take action to remedy the side effects. (IBM, like Microsoft, has opened programming research labs in India. Thereby dislocating jobs from both the US and Europe.) I would not expect much from the former, but perhaps the latter will be more innovative ... and demanding.

IOW, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

[Stormy]

Thought you guys would like it. Chuckle.

But,in all seriousness, this is "the view from the top."

Read the entire piece.

Pay close attention to the companies he mentions, his co-collaborators. Remember: This piece appeared in Foreign Affairs, a very prestigious intellectual rag. And I dare say, it has the support of the intellectual leaders in the country.

[Lafayette]

PS: "Globalization 2.0 has co-opted corporate America ... in way that makes it very hard for our nation to set itself right."

Difficult but not impossible. It is a matter of accepting the ineluctability of certain markets for unqualified labor that have quit America and won’t be coming back.

That does not mean the Chinese cheap manpower will undermine the entire output of American industry. Neither does it mean that intractable internal hurdles will not slow China considerably one day.

After all, this sort of Cassandra talk was very much vogue only fifteen years ago ... but it related to another country, Japan.

America has become fixated on getting rich (for the sake of getting rich) and has forgot not only how wealth is generated (by innovation) but how it should be distribute (not all for the rich but some crumbs for the grunts).

If America will un-fixate itself on maximizing profits for the short-term it might stand a chance of rationalizing its production systems (which are unbelievably outdated) in many industries. This would enhance productivity a lot more than throwing hi-tech at service industry jobs, which is how IBM has been making its profits for over a decade.

Palmisano is no fool. When IBM realized that PCs were no longer a hi-tech product but more a commodity item, they sold their division to Lenovo. IBM thus gave the Chinese their first home grown opportunity to make a truly Chinese global company.

[Mark Thoma]

Thanks for sending this Stormy - I didn't have a chance to ask if it was okay to identify you before posting it, so I left your name off the email.

[dissent]

If America will un-fixate itself on maximizing profits for the short-term it might stand a chance of rationalizing its production systems (which are unbelievably outdated) in many industries.

How can this happen when all the new plants are going into China?

[Peter Schaeffer]

Stormy,

You are quite correct. This is the completely self-serving "view from the top". If globalization 2.0 wasn’t enormously profitable for our elites, it would have been stopped long ago.

The sad part, is how short sighted our elites really are. Do they really think China is going to bribe them forever? That China will remain content as a source of cheap labor to man outsourced factories? That China won’t create world class companies that will in time, wipe the floor with the remains of those now profiting from “free” trade? That Asia won’t take over the management of the savings that it generates (and we don’t) undercutting Wall Street and London?

Samuel Huntington, in "Who Are We" documented in detail, the decline in patriotic affiliation among U.S. elites. A rather good article by Robert Shiller about the rise of post-national "cosmopolitans" was posted here some time ago.

Lots of folks didn't like it. Too close to home, I guess. The thread ran to 300+ comments.

[anne]

There we have the same hateful hatefulness, always knowing the language to use to call forth the spirit of intolerance, the spirit of prejudice. Imagine my surprise. Always prejudice, all the time.

[evagrius]

No, Mr. Schaeffer. The problem is not cosmopolitan thinking. Nor is it Huntington's ridiculous fixation on
"patriotic affiliation".

Those are distractions, fixations by people who can't see or won't see what's really going on.

We've already explored the notion of cosmopolitan and it certainly is not that of the MNC.

MNCs are not cosmopolitan. They're global, to be sure, they're multinational, to be sure, but they have no real attachment to any culture nor do they need attachment to any culture, except the culture of profit making.

True, they have no "patriotic affiliation". But I wonder about Mr. Huntington and his group. Where do you think they obtained their "old money" from. Certainly not by limiting their investments in one country.

MNCs represent a new type of organization that is really no longer beholden to any one country for existence.

This makes them supra-national, beyond the concept of nation, and as such, potentially much more powerful than nations in many ways.

They are a new form of the feudal period when Western Europe, after the fall of the Roman Empire and the collapse of Charlemagne's Empire, was ruled by a multiplicities of kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, independent cities etc; etc;
Another illustration is feudal Japan, ruled by a multiplicity of clans, each vying for power, with a rather powerless Emperor as titular ruler.

This time, rather than being geographic in expression, these entities express their power through markets, products, control of production, monopolization of basic foodstuff and its production, and so forth.

Your worries about cosmopolitans or patriotic affiliation are besides the point.

How to deal with these MNCs will be the political question of the 21st century. Given the lack of insight that most political leaders have, it will be a tough struggle.

[save_the_rustbelt]

The older IBM workers who lost 40% of the pensions they earned (the cuts were made during a profitable period)are probably big fans of globaliztion I would imagine.

says...

Mr Evagrius - suggest you read Peter Schaefers comments a little closer. Anne - go away and post pictures of birds or spam about Vanguard. You add nothing to any discussion. Go make some real freinds in real time to talk about things with. I'm sure they are happy for your plagirism of the New York Times.

[cm]

My reading of the article is little more than a self-congratulatory positioning of the "modern" corporation as a middleman managing customer relationships on the one side and globally supplied commodity services on the other, and passing this off as a principal mode of "creating value". Of course the things enabling this role are protection of "intellectual property", and "global security" (globally harmonized legislation and enforcement of your rights and your subjects' obligations). There is indeed a bit of a feudalist whiff to it.

There was one statement towards the end catching my attention -- "A third challenge will be to figure out how to maintain trust in enterprises based on increasingly distributed business models." I say, good luck Mr. Palmisano.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Evagrius,

I appreciate that you would like to draw some distrinction between cosmopolitans versus globalists versus MNCs, etc... However, for practical purposes they are all alike, at least with respect to economics (and many other issues as well).

Do you really think Shiller’s cosmopolitans read the Foreign Affair’s essay with anything less than unrestrained glee? Do you really believe the Bush and his ilk will find anything to disagree with? Do you really doubt that some of the posters on this site will do anything but cheer Mr. Palmisano?

By contrast, economic nationalists across the political spectrum (Lind, Huntington, Buchanan) oppose the post-national outlook captured in this essay. Why? Because the globalization 2.0 is killing the American Dream even if the cosmopolitan class profits from it. Worse, globalization 2.0 is destroying America’s ability to compete in world and could even endanger the survival of our country.

Let me use one economic example. In 2006, the US ran a $836 billion deficit in goods. This means that we were able to pay for just 55% of our goods imports via exports. If you were only earning 55% of what you spent and were borrowing the rest, you might think you had a problem, indeed a crisis. However, we are told that this is OK.

Beyond that, as a consequence of many years of rising trade deficits (in the 1980s and then again under Clinton and Bush) the U.S. doesn’t even have the production capacity (and established foreign markets) to pay its bills if the necessity arose…

Traditional nationalist elites would never tolerate such a situation. They would insist that America’s trade be at least balanced and make sure that it was. The value of the dollar would be set to make sure that exports were profitable and imports expensive. If China didn’t cooperate with the RMB, Gramm-Schumer would only the first of many laws to end Chinese predatory mercantilism. America would never be allowed to accumulate foreign debt because of the inevitable weakness and dependency that foreign debt creates.

Don’t believe me? See how the United States responded to the trade deficits of the 1980s. Check out the Plaza and Louve accords. Better yet, take a look at the trade balance data from 1985 to 1990.

Real economic nationalists are still very common in the world, just not in the U.S. Here we have a fanciful post-national globalism / cosmopolitanism that believes (or pretends to believe) that the entire world thinks the same way. By contrast, take a look at how South Korea responded to the East Asian economic crisis. The Won was massively devalued and the resulting trade surplus used to build massive foreign exchange reserves so that Korea would never be subject to the whims of the IMF ever again.

If only such sanity existed on our side of the Pacific…

As I mentioned, the globalist / cosmopolitan mindset is not limited to economics. Note the near absolute consensus that “education” will solve all of our problems… Even when Larry Summers admits that perhaps the jobs for the newly educated may not exist…

Multiculturalism, however defined, is another case in point. Do you really think that the cosmopolitans, the Foreign Affairs crowd, the MNCs, the Bushies and our own resident globalists think there is anything wrong with dividing our nation by language? Do you doubt that they regard E Pluribus Unum as either an anachronism or an anathema?

You may with to draw distinctions between these allegedly separate groups. Perhaps they exist. However, with respect to the key trade, investment, and social / cultural issues of our time, they are peas in post-national pod.

P.S. For the detail minded, adding the U.S. services surplus enables the U.S. to pay for 59% of its goods imports.

P.S.S. Samuel Huntington’s personal financial circumstances are, of course, unknown to me. However, America’s 19th century industrialists were notably domestic in outlook… The U.S. was still a net capital importer at that time and fiercely protectionist as well. Check out foreign trade as a percent of GDP. It was remarkably low.

[Peter Schaeffer]

cm,

"There is indeed a bit of a feudalist whiff to it"

How about this for vicious social inegalitarianism (quoting from Mickey Kaus at Slate)

"I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."

Check out Karl Rove has made the gaffe of the year for a discussion. The best line is from Paul Cella

“A rather provocative way to state the problem is that the Republican Party, under its current leadership, is advancing a plutocratic theory of politics: an aristocracy of wealth. But even this does not capture the full ugliness of the thing, for in a true plutocracy, no form of wealth is derided. That a man made his fortune by, let us, “picking tomatoes” or “making beds,” does not bar him from entry into power. But here it is indicated that some occupations are dishonorable by nature, and that even success at them is contemptible.”

A useful insight as to where the Open Borders, “free” trade, globalist crowd is taking us.

[cm]

Peter: Yup, ideas of (heritable?) entitlement to a position up in the food chain, perferrably sheltered from competition, are part of that picture.

[Movie Guy]

I recommend a read of this study:

U.S. Manufacturing Innovation at Risk
A Study by Joel Popkin and Kathryn Kobe
prepared for
Council of Manufacturing Associations
and The Manufacturing Institute
February 2006

excerpt:

Long-term U.S. economic growth and competitiveness in the global marketplace are at risk if recent trends in domestic manufacturing — and the innovation process it spawns - continue.

There are five clear warning signs:

1. Manufacturing output since the last recession lags that of earlier economic recoveries — its 15 percent growth since the end of the recession is only half the pace averaged in recoveries of the past half century.

2. Manufacturing capacity remains underutilized, slowing investment in new plants and equipment, an important avenue to introduce new, improved and lower-cost technologies. Since the end of the recession, total plant and equipment investment has risen at half the pace averaged in recoveries of the past half century. Manufacturing capacity has grown at less than one percent annually during this expansion (compared with five percent in the 1990s), reflecting a lack of investment in new facilities.

3. The U.S. share of global trade in manufactures has shrunk, falling from 13 percent in the 1990s to 10 percent in 2004. The U.S. share of global trade in some of the highest value-added export industries such as machinery and equipment is falling. Furthermore, the United States now runs a trade deficit in Advanced Technology Products, goods produced in the industries expected to lead U.S. exports in the 21st century.

4. The U.S. manufacturing workforce is highly productive; yet, the perception that manufacturing employment is unstable and lacks job opportunities discourages new workers from pursuing career paths in manufacturing. Manufacturing continues to pay better than many other industries, and it employs 25 percent of scientists and related technicians and 40% of engineers and engineering technicians — critical skill groups for the R&D process — yet the sector is experiencing a growing shortage of skilled workers.

5. America’s long-standing leadership in R&D will be challenged. While the United States continues to spend more than any other country on R&D investment, U.S. growth in R&D has averaged only about one percent per year in real terms since 2000. And the United States is not keeping up with other countries in insuring a supply of scientific personnel: the portion of doctoral degrees awarded to citizens and permanent residents in the United States in science and engineering is falling, while the combined number of science and engineering graduates in China and India (1 million) now dwarfs those in America (70,000).

"The U.S. share of global trade in manufactures has shrunk, falling from 13 percent in the 1990s to 10 percent in 2004."

That's a 3 percent global share decrease...two years ago. That translates into big bucks.

[Movie Guy]

"The U.S. share of global trade in manufactures has shrunk, falling from 13 percent in the 1990s to 10 percent in 2004."

Stated differently, that's a 23% loss of manufacturing output that the U.S., if it had held its global market share, would have exported in 2004.

Think about that. That's when you know that your nation and its workforce are getting their butt kicked.

Offshoring, anyone?

[Movie Guy]

If you doubt the offshoring remark, let me be a bit more specific by quoting another part of the study:

"The United States’s share during the 1994-2001 period was relatively stable, averaging about 13 percent. Since then its share has declined. In 2003, the U.S. share was 10.7 percent and was down to 10.2 percent by
2004. That compares to Germany’s 11.7 percent share in 2004. China’s share has doubled in the past few years rising from four percent in 1999 to 8.3 percent in 2004."

[reason]

I wonder how this view of things will look if there are big currency reallignments and big increases in transport costs. Suddenly small local producers will cut these monstrous MNCs to ribbons.

But it was always that way, decentralise-centralise, economies of scale vs flexibility. The wheel turns. (Unfortunately some people get crushed in the process).

[anne]

Well, we could say leave Iraq immediately and attend to domestic needs such as for health care and college-university tuition and infrastructure development. We could allow for strrengthened unions; oh dear, imagine that. But, we prefer to spend $14 billion a month in Iraq. for tragic lunatic reasons. Go figure.

[Lafayette]

Dissent: “How can this happen when all the new plants are going into China?”

All new plants are not going to China. This scaremongering is getting out of proportion to the real menace.

You seem to lose sight of the fact that all the Chinese gadgets that have flooded our market have extended considerably the purchasing power of both Americans and Europeans. It is therefore not all bad.

Most of this gadgetry is made form unskilled or semi-skilled labor. Let’s realize the fact that for those goods, labor opportunities are perhaps lost forever. It was a thoroughly foreseeable consequence when GATT lowered trade tariff barriers in the mid-nineties. Should GATT have NOT lowered trade barriers? No, it was right to do so.

The fault lies in our (Europe and the US) inability to react in time. By the time the accumulated trade deficit got to serious proportions, at the start of the Bush administration, we had a bunch of plutocrats in place that could not care one iota for “American production”. Outsourcing had become a fad and the Republican constituency liked the option. Besides, it was working wonders bringing China away from Communism - bogeyman bar none of the religious right.

Both European and American authorities had the duty to confront the problem, not with threats of raising tariffs (which is not so easy given that GATT was a treaty agreement). They were negligent in not attacking the roots of the problem, which is the un- and semi-skilled workforce employed in production.

How to attack that problem? You aren’t going to like the answers “‘cuz there aint no quik fix” – that solution Americans love so well. Either the government embarks upon a massive retraining program towards moving the quality of skills up the competence ladder (do we have enough plumbers, electricians, carpenters?) or fiscal policy can favor companies that keep unskilled labor content production in the US by means of heavily automated production lines. Either way, the jobs are gone forever. But, it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness. (For instance, by enhancing quality in car manufacturing with zero-defect QC procedures, not all car manufacturing jobs will go to the Far East. America will not ever win in the entry-level cheap-and-cheerful small car. But, in family-size sedans, it can still keep the market. It is time to seriously introduce diesel engine cars that meet acceptable levels of CO2 emissions and which give great mileage and lower engine maintenance costs … which Europe learned in the early 1970s due to high gas taxes that favoured fuel efficient cars.)

Also, as already proposed, is a New Deal infrastructure program for rebuilding parts of America’s towns and cities that have been blighted by decades of neglect. We can afford tons and tons of dollars for an ineffectual war over the sandbox. But, at home, we think the “free market” will attend to renovating the country. It never did and never will because there is no guaranty of profit. Besides, there's a sentiment that "if it aint broke don't fix it". It takes a hurricane named Katrina for the public to understand that such a feeling is dangerously naive.

Massive infrastructure rebuilding can only come from federal subsidies for urban and suburban renewal. Quite possibly we need to rethink the way we want to live. New cities that collect a dispersed population, once employed in agriculture, probably need to be built. Ghettos that are rat havens ...

And, just wait till K-street gets a hang of THAT pork-barrel!

[Lafayette]

PS: “The Won was massively devalued and the resulting trade surplus used to build massive foreign exchange reserves so that Korea would never be subject to the whims of the IMF ever again. »

The won is NOT the dollar, unless you've not noticed. A massive, unilateral devaluation of the dollar and the dollar will free-fall. As a reserve currency, it will be dumped on international markets. Americans will see petrol prices at stratospheric prices.

Any action that affects energy-costs is anathema. Period.

[Real Person from the Real World]

I work for an imigrant who is betting on getting in on the trend to globalize. He pays me in the US as badly as the guys in his home country. Doesn't matter to him that it cost more to live here than there. All he sees is his bottom line, and his need to move his entrepreneurial risks from himself to others (his workers).
He works hard, in many ways he is a decent guy. I am sure Palisiano is nice to his wife, kids, and dogs (if he has any). The problem is that these guys are totally oblivious to the misery they cause.
When it comes to a lousy job, most people say, 'well, if you aren't happy, move on.' That's easier said then done in this age of submitting a resume online to some black hole, screening practices and personality quizes by HR departments that are parallels to the denial managment practices of Health Insurance companies, and covert age discrimination. Meanwhile selfishness is alive and well.... take a look at the health care debate on other pages of this blog.... the concepts that people overconsume HC, or should be penalized for (presumably) not living a healthy life, or the outright 'why should I pay for someone else.'
Basically, a lot of this has it's roots in the worship of individualism by Ayn Rand, and the struggles of the 60s for equal rights. When companies had to start mouthing their adherence to new inclusion laws. Now we have Political Correctness, and covert meaness. We have diversity rules, but the diversity is now pledged to cheap labor costs, not to inclusion.
Like Adam Smith said, whenever busines people get together, they are forever trying to find a way to fix things for their own benefit.

[evagrius]

When I read the phrase "economic nationalism", especially with regards to the U.S. economy, the world's largest, I think of other phrases.

Rather than being full of ressentiment;

("Ressentiment is a profound sense of resentment, frustration, and hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one's frustration, generated by a sense of weakness/inferiority and feelings of jealousy/envy in the face of the 'cause', that ultimately generates a rejecting/justifying 'value-system' or morality that exists as a means of attacking or denying the perceived source of one's own sense of inferiority.")

there should be a more dispassionate analysis of what's going on.

Ressentiment is one of the emotional root sources for fascism or totalitarian thinking.

The present situation doesn't need that.

[Lafayette]

RPRW: "The problem is that these guys are totally oblivious to the misery they cause."

I doubt it. Not totally. They simply are observing the rules, trying to make a living. If they don't, someone else will.

Change places, and you'll start playing by thier rules.

No sense lamenting the way the world is made because every time we "change" it, the outcome is even worse.

Start messing with world commerce by making offshore dislocation of jobs illegal and we'll instigate a protectionist chain reaction around the globe. We've done that in the early 1900s. It helped cause the Great Depression.

It is not the sort of globalization that will please anyone, so let's simply try to contend with the one we have.

[Lafayette]

PS: "Both are driven by two sides of globalization undermining the American Dream, "free" trade and Open Borders. "

Isn’t it amazingly ironic that when America was enjoying more-or-less strong post-war (WW2) growth up till the end of the last millennium, no body there was wringing their hands over the poor sods who were buying American products from US multinationals thereby enriching many, many Americans.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the wailing and lamenting can be heard in all corners. Sounds like a spoilt child to me.

Nobody, but nobody, really cares if the US is going through a bad patch. Europe is even worse off, with twice the unemployment. Some are even inwardly gleeful that the misery is being shared finally. After trumpeting America’s triumph over communism the pendulum has swung the other way.

America has one of the greatest income and wealth inequalities on this earth. When all was going well, the winners were treated as celebrities. This was THE American Dream … getting as rich as Croesus. Gates and Buffet walk on water, thier every word makes front pages throughout the land.

America created the plutocrats, with their shameful wealth, whilst the poor got ignored. This unfairness was obvious to a great many long ago. (The Pickety analyses that first showed the inequity in incomes was reported decades ago.)

Then Americans stupidly gave them the worst of them keys to the nation by electing them into the White House.

Really, guys ‘n gals, who do you expect to sympathize with your unfortunate situation? There is no one out there listening. No one.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Lafayette,

“A massive, unilateral devaluation of the dollar and the dollar will free-fall. As a reserve currency, it will be dumped on international markets. Americans will see petrol prices at stratospheric prices.”

Check out TWEX, Dollar's Trade Weighted Exchange Index. The dollar fell by almost 50% in just a few years after 1985. The world didn’t come to an end and fuel prices remained stable.

“Start messing with world commerce by making offshore dislocation of jobs illegal and we'll instigate a protectionist chain reaction around the globe. We've done that in the early 1900s. It helped cause the Great Depression.”

The US was highly protectionist from the founding of the Republic until well into the 20th century. The notion that America’s long standing tariff policies triggered the great depression has little basis in fact. At the time, folks pointed to the stock market crash and the banking collapse. Subsequent analysis identifies interest rate policies and the gold standard as key culprits.

However, the idea that the U.S. can do nothing about the current structure of world trade is absurd. China (and other countries) engage in predatory mercantilism via “Exchange Rate Protectionism”. See Will Asian Mercantilism Meet its Waterloo? by Martin Wolf. If these countries can manipulate the global economic system to their advantage, without crashing the house of cards, so can the United States.

“Isn’t it amazingly ironic that when America was enjoying more-or-less strong post-war (WW2) growth up till the end of the last millennium, no body there was wringing their hands over the poor sods who were buying American products from US multinationals thereby enriching many, many Americans.”

Until fairly recently, America’s foreign trade was nearly balanced. We sold to the world and bought from the world. It wasn’t a one-way street. Now, to a substantial extent it is. Time for a change.

“Nobody, but nobody, really cares if the US is going through a bad patch.”

The U.S. isn’t going through a bad patch. GDP growth has been strong. However, the benefits have accrued to a tiny minority (with their cheerleaders on this blog) rather than the American people as a whole.

“Really, guys ‘n gals, who do you expect to sympathize with your unfortunate situation? There is no one out there listening. No one.”

The United States doesn’t need the rest of the world’s sympathy. We need to get our own act together.

[Movie Guy]

Lafayette,

I reread all of your posts. I don't believe you have a good grasp of what is transpiring in the manufacturing industries. Plenty of emotion and sound bites, but few real facts were shared.

For you to say that China is only building and exporting "gadgets" as you explained to dissent in your post of Feb 20, 2007 4:33:19 AM is ridiculous. Your so-called analysis doesn't begin to describe the reality of the manufacturing situation in terms of dislocated industries and products that range from machine tooling, durables, and clothing to high tech products as well as critical support industries such as steel manufacture (and the U.S. steel industry is now, as of last week, headed into the vise or slaughterhouse). The U.S. aluminum industry appears to be facing a similar fate. These are critical industries of the United States of America.

Over the past two years, a number of us who work with or study manufacturing have posted reports and information that break down what has transpired. The pattern going forward is clear. I have done the same again under this main post with a report that focuses on R&D and manufacturing innovation.

Telling the readers here that China is only manufacturing "gadgets" that require unskilled and semi-skilled labor largely overlooks what China actually manufactures or assembles and where China is really headed with its industrial complex. Here is an indication:

China Economic Net

2006-01-11: China Maps Out High-Tech Development Plan

2006-04-18: China Aims for 20% Rise In High-Tech Goods Trade

2006-04-18: 'Sanzi' Firms (Joint Venture, Private and Totally Foreign-Owned) Take Up 75% of High-Tech Sector Income

2006-06-01: China Encourages (Requires) Independent Innovation of Auto Industry, Including Foreign-Funded Manufacturers Direct Support

The last article provides a good indication of how Western FDI firms will be "encouraged" to transfer technology to domestic firms in China.

[Lafayette]

MGF: "Telling the readers here that China is only manufacturing "gadgets" that require unskilled and semi-skilled labor largely overlooks what China actually manufactures or assembles and where China is really headed with its industrial complex."

Go to any Wal-Mart and see for yourself the "gadgets".

China is moving up the technology ladder, but they are not there quite yet. Both Airbus and Boeing are opening production lines there.

But, China is a long way from designing a viable commercial aircraft offering. Still, they do know how to make a ballistic missle ...

Besides, we are fixated on China's manufacturing might, when in fact its real challenge is bringing up the living standards of its rural population.

China's manufacturing is one tide in which not all boats are rising.

[Movie Guy]

Figure 20, Currency movement against the US dollar (31 December 2002 – 20 October 2005), in the Martin Wolf reference, 'Will Asian Mercantilism Meet its Waterloo?', linked above by Peter Schaffer tells the story.

I recommend that everyone read that report - it is loaded with charts.

[Movie Guy]

Lafayette,

You don't begin to describe what is really being manufactured overseas, in China and elsewhere. The list is a helluva lot longer than what we find in Wal-Mart.

Go to a Lowe's, Home Depot, any furniture store, any appliance store, any clothing store, any electronics store, Best Buy, Circuit City...you name it. The majority of finished goods that U.S. consumers purchase are now manufactured overseas. The list extends far beyond "gadgets".

Go to an automotive parts house.

The automotive industry is headed down the same path. The parts and components are being rapidly pushed offshore. It's a large list.

Go try to buy a small to midsize farm tractor built in the USA.

Gadgets? That doesn't begin to describe reality of source manufacturing.

[evagrius]

So, MG, are you for "nationalising" essential industries?

That seems to be the only out besides laws to prevent outsourcing.

It's capitalism at its very best.

Wasn't the Cold War fought over capitalism?

[Peter Schaeffer]

Evagrius,

See Squanderville versus Thriftville by Warren Buffet for one possible solution. Of course, Palmisano, the Bushies, cosmopolitans, the Foreign Affairs crowd, and our own resident globalists would aboslutely hate it.

Plaza/Louve redux would be a more mainstream solution. Harder now because of the new era of fixed exchange rates

[Movie Guy]

evagrius - "So, MG, are you for "nationalising" essential industries?"

Why go to that extreme when the solution is much less severe? Similar to your slam of Hunntington, you miss the obvious as do many elitists. People who live in the United States of America live in a nation that has, based in federal laws, responsibilities to its citizens. Those laws extend to the U.S. trade policy formulation and implementation. The absence of meaningful adjustments to trade policies run astray is the missing course of action.

The WTO and its members lowered the tariff damn gates so low on certain tariffs that the offshoring flow effort was pushed into overdrive, and U.S. trade policy and corporate governance added more push. Those combined efforts plus the actions of other developed nations has resulted in the build of 60,000 manufacturing plants in one nation during a four year period. The effects of offshoring since 2001 have impacted the U.S. to the tune of a loss of 21-23% of export manufacturing sales on the global market in 2004. Not only did the U.S. lose those sales, but industries have essentially been offshored and the skills that go with them.

What we are observing, mostly from the back of the auditorium, is the sellout of the American industrial base including its skill sets and R&D. The notion that the U.S. will survive only with its services sector output is a dumb idea that is full of holes. It was always a naive idea, though it was essentially embraced by plenty of economists. The U.S. isn't only losing its "old" manufacturing base, but also its high tech manufacturing base. Many econos said that wouldn't happen. Warned, they repeated their mantra. Again, naive thinkers. The loss of that high value GDP output and related exports volume is a serious error in U.S. trade policy formulation and implementation. Meanwhile, U.S. immigration policy has fallen apart with the high volume of illegal aliens entering the USA. Combined, the WTO initiatives and flow of illegal aliens are putting considerable financial pressures on local communities. Again, the situation is not sustainable from a local, county, state, or national level.

Warren Buffet's solution is worth considering, as is a complete review of U.S. trade policy and membership in the WTO. I recommend a complete review.

That the WTO decisions principally ignore the consequences of currency valuation manipulations, labor abuses, and environmental degradation on a mass scale is cause for concern. It's time for a serious change in direction before the roof caves in. The current path is not sustainable.

[Movie Guy]

MG - "For you to say that China is only building and exporting "gadgets" as you explained to dissent in your post of Feb 20, 2007 4:33:19 AM is ridiculous."

Well, let's look at the trade facts. See anything besides "gadgets"?

Advanced Technology Products:

Exports, Imports, and Balance of Advanced Technology Products by Technology Group and Selected Countries and Areas, 2006, or Text file

U.S. Trade Balance by Country:

Exports, Imports and Trade Balance by Country and Area, Not Seasonally Adjusted: 2006, or Text file

Other U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services data: Current Release, February 13, 2007.

Next release on March 9, 2007.

Does anyone believe that the U.S. trade deficit is sustainable?

[evagrius]

So what other solution is there besides nationalising?

If the WTO etc; is colluding what other resource do you have?

Your last answer was just a more descriptive version of your original argument.

[Movie Guy]

The U.S. isn't going to nationalize its industries.

The Congress will have to evaluate existing U.S. trade policy. Then act.

[dryfly]

Movie Guy is right - there is WAY more than just gadgets in the works in China.

I'm in mfg myself, have buddies heading over there again soon to bring a plant up - think very high end automotive components (engines, transmission, electrical systems)... these comprise something like 50-60% of the cost of an automobile. My buddy doesn't make the trannies - just the components that go in them. In effect the suppliers are following the OEs over there now big time.

And its all the latest high efficiency, low polluting designs - not grandfathered old designs. This is good stuff they are bringing over there.

Another friend works in avionics - commercial systems to Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, etc. They are increasingly building stuff or outsourcing key components in China... And they have to do this IF they want to be on the platforms Boeing, Airbus & Bombardier sell to China. The term that is used is 'offset' though officially they try not to acknowledge it.

We see trinkets at WalMart & think that is all there is being done over there - if you see inside the beast you see there is A LOT more.

Do I blame the Chinese? No - they are taking care of THEIR people. I blame our gov't & business leaders for selling our people down the river for short term gain.

And infrastructure, unions, more education ISN'T going to reverse this flow. Unionizing workers here cannot save a single job slatted to be sent offshore. A better bridge over the Ohio or Mississippi isn't going to make companies on either side more competitive vis-a-vis Wuxi.

This can not be stopped by wishing it away. Not in the face of intensional merchantilist currency manipulation. Wage differentials are one thing - that can give a country a big boost but then usually currencies readjust to moderate that differential & balance is reestablished... But not in the current situation. Either that or the adjustment isn't happening fast enough to save our base. That isn't an accident.

I guess its a good thing we are still the world leader at producing Mortgage Backed Securities... the world still seems to want all of those we can produce... so maybe Ricardo still applies.

[evagrius]

Yes, Congress, which is composed mainly of individuals who benefit from the present situation, is going to do something.

[Movie Guy]

dryfly,

One helluva good post.

[Peter Schaeffer]

dryfly,

MG beat me to it, but still best line of the day...

"Do I blame the Chinese? No - they are taking care of THEIR people. I blame our gov't & business leaders for selling our people down the river for short term gain."

[Lafayette]

MG: "The Congress will have to evaluate existing U.S. trade policy. Then act."

Act how?

You seem to forget that the US is signatory to GATT, which was negotiated under the auspices of the WTO of which the US is a member.

Membership means that the US will observe WTO rulings in matter of trade and tariffs. If the US wants to start a protectionist war, then all it has to do is withdraw from the WTO. Having done that, the remaining countries will increase, at will, their tariffs on US exports.

Is that the sort of outcome that will suit American labor? Let's be serious.

[Movie Guy]

Lafayette,

I have forgotten nothing as I know the WTO rules rather well. I am one of the very few who has posted information about the WTO on this blog. Stormy is another who has posted such info.

The Administration has never fulfilled its responsibilities regarding currency manipulation by China. That is no secret on the Hill.

As for WTO membership, that is voted on and renewed by the U.S. Congress. Thus far, the Congress has performed a rubber stamp game.

That the WTO is pursuing multilateral agreements for all members in good standing which receive preferential treatment (required condition - Most Favored Nation trading status) who are engaged in reverse protectionism practices and is not finding such members liable or in violation during the country review process is cause for action by the U.S. Congress.

Let's stop kidding around here.

China is actively engaged in a trade war via its currency manipulation and has been allowed to continue it without the first sanction. It's nonsense. The U.S. Congress knows it. The U.S. Administration knows it.

As for the WTO accords and specific tariff levels, it's time for a review. The U.S. isn't the only WTO member being hammered by trade imbalances driven by some of the tariff levels as well as the VAT preferential ruling by the WTO.

It's time for the U.S. Congress to evaluate the performances of U.S. trade policy, the WTO, and evaluate proper courses of action.

The WTO isn't GOD. We don't have to belong to the WTO. The U.S. could function quite well on bilateral trade agreements.

[Lafayette]

dryfly: "And infrastructure, unions, more education ISN'T going to reverse this flow. Unionizing workers here cannot save a single job slatted to be sent offshore."

You're dead wrong. And, that is why the union movement is destined to die a long, agonizing death.

Its outlook is stuck in the 20th century and the world has passed the union movement by. It should be leading the effort to retrain its members to higher qualified jobs, better pay and durable employment.

But no, it is stuck in the mud railing against an inevitability that it cannot comprehend, hoping forlornly that the American Congress is going to ride to its rescue with protectionist measures.

It will go the way of woolly haired mammoths. 'Tis a shame. The objectives of unions are not to protect overpaid jobs, but to assure the best interests of its members.

[Movie Guy]

I agree with Dryfly and Peter.

The U.S. Government and its business leaders have been selling U.S. workers down the river for short term gains. There is no question as to what is happening.

Remember, 60,000 new foreign manufacturing plants were constructed in China within a four-year period, 2000-2003. That number excludes domestic-backed plants in China.

Think about that.

That's an average of 15,000 new FDI financed manufacturing plants per year.

How many new manufacturing plants were built in the United States of American during the same four-year period?

[Movie Guy]

dryfly - "And infrastructure, unions, more education ISN'T going to reverse this flow. Unionizing workers here cannot save a single job slatted to be sent offshore."

Lafayette - "You're dead wrong. And, that is why the union movement is destined to die a long, agonizing death." ...blah, blah, blah.

Lafayette, it's you who doesn't have his information straight. Dryfly is right.

You can play the role of lefist and say that all will be well if x,y,z happen, but that is been proven wrong over and over on the trade issues.

The unions have changed their negotiation strategies, focusing on more realisic issues. But they know damn well that existing U.S. trade policy does not support their general aims nor those of U.S. workers, union or not.

That you are so ill-informed and poorly read on the matter of high tech offshoring demonstrates that you don't understand what is happening. The offshoring is jumping to the next level and monies spent on reeducation and all the other approach concepts that are not anchored in the reality of physical presence employment needs are wasted energy for the majority of average American workers.

You're singing the same song we've listened to for years. It's just such bullshit.

Catch up. Read up on high tech industry offshoring. Then come back. And try recommending something else.

It is very clear that you don't work in manufacturing or with manufacturers.

[EBegoc]

"It is very clear that you don't work in manufacturing or with manufacturers."

and you need to to understand what is happening?

I would tend to side with Lafayette, what's worrying is not that the american gvt isn't doing anything about the actual situation, but that the american public is failing to capitalise on the current opportunities.

American Manufacture is destined for a long slow decline, imho, but nothing is done towards retraining, or improving education in Universities. things are similar in Europe by the way. Much of the western world seems to be waiting for their govt to "just do something" while it should be working hard towards creating a highly skilled workforce.

[Movie Guy]

Lafayette,

I don't mean to make you look bad on the trade issue, but a number of us have fought this battle for a long time. Quite a few of us starting blogging because of trade issues. So, yeah, I take this a bit personally.

We have a mess and nothing is being done to fix it. It gets old.

I do appreciate your comments, and its seldom that I disagree with you. But, on trade...well, that is the motherload...all the marbles...and we're just giving them away. It makes me sick.

[Movie Guy]

EBegoc,

I see that you don't understand the full scope of this, either.

If you visit the U.S. Government website, Export.gov, the first entries you will see (at least that was the case last night) are about travel and tourism to the USA. Now, that's the news.

As for your views that education and retraining solves all...well, that's fine if you pick the right occupation. If you miss, you're out of a lot of money and relocation expense. These are expenses that add up quickly. And it's not something that one wants to experience four or five times.

The majority of Americans would not necessarily benefit from endless university degrees or additional fields of study. It won't happen anyway. The majority might be better off starting small businesses anchored to local physical presence needs. More business incubators are needed to support this potential solution. But retraining for the third, fourth, or fifth time isn't the answer. If a family had been able to purchase a residence and remain there for decades, and find/create suitable employment in their local area, they would be ahead of the power curve financially and socially. This has been proven in many examples. Anchor down, build the business, enjoy life and to hell with the corporate burnout approach. That's just workforce hire...burn and turn.

The U.S. turnover rate on employment is higher than in Europe based on my experiences on both continents.

Nations that voluntarily push their industrial and agricultural bases into the ocean will ultimately regret such decisions. Nations need more than merchants, clerks, and software technicians and the occasional repairman or road worker. Sometimes it helps to know how something was built as opposed to throwing it away and buying another one. You don't learn anything by just throwing it away.

[EBegoc]

"Nations need more than merchants, clerks, and software technicians and the occasional repairman or road worker."

"As for your views that education and retraining solves all...well, that's fine if you pick the right occupation. If you miss, you're out of a lot of money and relocation expense."

"The majority of Americans would not necessarily benefit from endless university degrees or additional fields of study."

how do you make these 3 statements fit together?

you're right, Nations need more than customer service clerks and repairman, that's why they should train scientists, engineers, researchers and so on.
As for endless university degrees, true, a Phd in Ebonics... or some BS Social Studies diploma won't get you far.

on the other hand training a workforce of scientists, engineers, innovators is where government focus should be, and this goes through improving base education (numeracy, understanding of advanced technical concepts, discipline...), much of which leads to a body of easily transferable skills, and taking a different approach to retraining, life long education and improving means of career change.

No growth has ever come from just staying idle and moaning about the current situation, protectionist measures won't make much of a difference, in the long termthey would be detrimental to the US. something must be done about China, but should "they win" it will mainly be "our" fault for not taking the opportunity while it was there.

[anne]

"As for endless university degrees, true, a Phd in Ebonics... or some BS Social Studies diploma won't get you far."

A little innuendo of racism and more idiocy on education. Amazing how far fine Social Studies majors go.

[EBegoc]

"A little innuendo of racism and more idiocy on education. Amazing how far fine Social Studies majors go."

Yes, pointing out that some subjects may get you further than others must be racist. actually, that sort of accusations come generally from people who happen to be racist themselves, so...
Thomas Sowell seem to agree with me, but he must be racist too.

and obviously all social studies degree, no matter what the subject are perfectly relevant to finding a great job, ceteris paribus.

[Movie Guy]

Education is a wonderful experience. At the same time, the needs for advanced education in certain fields are driven by employment demands. If operating on a limited budget, an individual has to make well-reasoned adult choices related to educational pursuits and potential employment, and that is the case for many Americans.

There is no demand for 20 million or 100 million additional American scientists, researchers, or engineers. The corporations have already demonstrated a ready willingness to import any additional SREs that they need under the Visa program. There certainly isn't a shortage of SREs abroad. Moreover, some entities have to pay for the supposed employment of an additional x number of million new SREs. The demand, of course, is driven by the market or government needs.

The current trend of offshoring includes relocation of R&D facilities abroad. Unless an American intends to follow the R&D facilities to foreign lands if such opportunities exist (and that's a big if), the potential for R&D employment is further reduced. That is not to say that R&D opportunities do not exist in the USA, but corporate sponsorship of such is certainly being reduced in a number of fields and industries.

The costs involved in pursuing degrees that will not return an adequate rate of return on investment are not to be ignored. For those individuals who desire to pursue such fields regardless of the employment opportunities or the lack of such, that's fine. But to suggest that a vast number of Americans should switch to such fields absent a projected demand and accompanying pay scales worthy of such endeavors is not realistic.

The American citizens who do not have the aptitudes, funds, or desires to pursue such advanced educational fields (and that represents the majority) should concentrate their resources and efforts in other directions unless they have burning desires to enter such fields. Absent such considerations, these other Americans have to find other avenues upon which to sustain their lives and families.

Supplemental education, once displaced from the workforce, is quite often necessary or, at a minimum, desirable to broaden one's employment options but if one is supporting a family during the process the costs are significant if not prohibitive. To suggest that they all run out and train to be scientists and engineers for job opportunities that do not exist for the majority is an ill-conceived plan.

I recommend business incubators be utilized to build a new business base for many displaced or new American workers. I have seen the evidence of such efforts and there is continual spillover which creates other business opportunities in the local community area.

The employment solutions are not simple, but there will no great demand for huge numbers of additional American SREs for a long time. The CIA published a report a few years that forecast that advanced educational needs in the USA would decline in the future. When I first read that document, I was stunned. Upon further research over a period of months, I concluded that their findings were most likely correct based on the rate of offshoring and consolidation of businesses in unrelated fields. That is why I have shifted my attention to new business creation with the support of business incubators. These individuals not only can build businesses and help grow communities, but they will also have the opportunity to seek additional higher education or technical training as necessary to further their personal successes in operating businesses. I have observed this frequently.

[anne]

"As for endless university degrees, true, a Phd in Ebonics... or some BS Social Studies diploma won't get you far."

Yes; there is the innuendo of racism. And, yes, a social studies diploma takes students ever so far. Yes; an English or a history or a fine arts diploma happily takes students ever so far. Let us have ever so many more social studies majors.

[anne]

"The CIA published a report a few years that forecast that advanced educational needs in the USA would decline in the future."

Imagine how much more secure we can feel, knowing the intelligence services are working hard to discourgage American education. Idiocy on idiocy on idiocy.

[anne]

Ah, if only we might have a less educated America, there would be security of security. We could, say, begin to burn campus copies of Moby-Dick and intern English majors. (Can I too now become an intelligence agent?)

[anne]

"The CIA published a report a few years that forecast that advanced educational needs in the USA would decline in the future."

Close all medical schools, now. Imagine we have hundreds of students going to medical school in Cuba, free, yes, free, but America's problem of problems is too much education. What is the opposite world of Superman's enemy? The bizarro world, I think, where up is down and hello is goodbye.

[anne]

Duh, I am an intelligence agent checking to see that there are no hidden copies of Moby-Dick in the house, Lady. Imagine, a white whale still subversive. A threat to America.

[anne]

http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/moby/moby_001.html

1851

Moby-Dick
By Herman Melville

LOOMINGS

Call me Ishmael. Some years ago - never mind how long precisely - having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people's hats off - then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can. This is my substitute for pistol and ball. With a philosophical flourish Cato throws himself upon his sword; I quietly take to the ship. There is nothing surprising in this. If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me....

[anne]

Call me "who," call me "what?" Ah, the tragedy and subversion of the American English major. Do you have CIA clearance to post that passage from Moby-Dick? Call me who?

[Lafayette]

MG: "The current trend of offshoring includes relocation of R&D facilities abroad. Unless an American intends to follow the R&D facilities to foreign lands if such opportunities exist (and that's a big if),"

Thank you, Cassandra, for our daily quota of misery.

What a fun poster you are ...

[Movie Guy]

anne,

Your posts are immature junk. You add nothing of value to most discussions. Considering the monies spent on your elitist education, it's a shame to see you post such mindless, oxygen-converting noise on the blogs.

I have given up on believing that you would eventually act more mature. You're little more than a spam artist intent upon crashing threads.

I don't believe that many readers pay any attention to you anymore based on my email traffic. I don't blame them.

Spam away, clown.

[Movie Guy]

Lafayette,

I would rather post good news. I really would, but we're getting our tails kicked. And there is hardly a complaint on the national end of the discussion.

[Ebegoc]

MG,

I would agree with your comment on SME's and local businesses. There are numerous benefits to this approach, that go well beyond the sole economic factors. but these will still have to fit within the greater framework of a globalized world. you can only do so much locally, and economies of scale still apply.

on the issue of education, you're right to point out that the inflow of (majorly asian, i think) engineers has meant that corporations did not need to employ locally qualified staff, but it's a chicken and egg dilemna as to know which came first. Did corporations recruit foreign staff thus diminishing the incentives of american students to pursue careers in engineering, or did they turn to oversees candidate due to the lack of local alternatives?

As for the CIA report you mention, this is not really surprising, in the sense that as long as foreigners are welcome to compete with american worker on american soil, the influx of talent benefits the economy, but in the long run... i think we know where this road leads.

There are obviously difficulties with dealing with higher education, especially for someone who supports a family, on the other hand, i believe the government may be able to help with this, one example in the UK is the studentfinance program which proposes interest free loans, that have to be repaid once the graduate earns a salary above a certain treshold. if i'm correct, but don't quote me on that, about 12% of the UK workforce follows additional education on top of their normal working hours, i would tend to think this is a sane attitude to the current job market.

and your last point, that picking up a study subject involves risks past a certain age, considering the costs and possibility of limited returns after graduation, i have to agree wholeheartedly with you on that, especially if we consider the degree of specialisation that is required in some subjects (nanotech, biotech...), i'm not sure what the government could do with regards to this issue to be honest.

[Movie Guy]

Let's not leave off the best part from the other thread:

"Can I too now become an intelligence agent?"

obviously not, no.

Posted by: Ebegoc | Feb 21, 2007 4:46:59 AM

----

Now, that was priceless!

[Lafayette]

MG: "Quite a few of us starting blogging because of trade issues. So, yeah, I take this a bit personally. We have a mess and nothing is being done to fix it. It gets old."

Getting upset about trade will solve nothing.

Given the present circumstance, I'll repeat the ONLY alternative action possible: Understand that certain jobs have gone forever and won’t be coming back. With that in mind, plan for the future because it will take a long, long time to remedy the situation.

What has happened is nothing new. I can show you parts of Massachusetts once known as the "World Capital of the Plastics Industry" in the early fifties ... by the end of the eighties the brick buildings were all empty. A further fifteen years later and those same buildings are derelict.

A long, long time ago it was well known that America would have to change its educational system to meet the challenges of the future. Nothing was done. As a consequence it is ill-prepared for the challenges that lie ahead.

America's rat-race to riches, its focus on wealth accumulation that makes celebrity heroes of millionaires has an unforeseen cost in poverty - and that is almost axiomatic. Nobody remembers who came in second? Well, most of the population comes in second or third or n-th ... are we to be forgot because we are not media foci?

The fact of the matter is that America lost its way on its road to riches. Back to basics. Do what has to be done. Find where the real needs of industry and commerce lie, and train people to those needs - which is simple to say and damn difficult to do.

Put a cap on corporate stock-optioned compensation so that Management thinks about the future in three years and not this quarter's results - you'll see a lot less dislocation happen.

Think about America as "we" and not "me". Attend to the needs of the community and the individuals will do just fine. A mentality that favors the collective instead of individual effort will help enormously.

There is no more resilient an economy than America's, which is largely due to the abilities of Americans to adapt to new and changing circumstances. Thank God for that because it is an amazing advantage over most of the rest of the world.

But, neither should America take its manifest destiny as God-given ... because God does not take sides.

[Lafayette]

eb: "i believe the government may be able to help with this, one example in the UK is the studentfinance program which proposes interest free loans, that have to be repaid once the graduate earns a salary above a certain treshold."

The UK is el cheapo by European standards. A university education is largely tuition free in most European countries.

Why repay student loans? Isn't education a birthright? Isn't secondary school education assumed by the state?

Why not a university education? In this day and age, a country that does not invest in the intelligence capital of its citizens is destined to a mediocre existence.

Cut the Pentagon budget and put the money where it will do the most good for the most people - and not just toys for the boys.

[Movie Guy]

We have been observing the equivalent of a glacier dam break up. There is still more to go on high tech offshoring, but eventually we'll know where we stand in the global employment economy.

Perhaps at that point, the professionals who study such employment problems will offer viable solutions going forward.

The U.S. DOL job bank and related link employment forecasts aren't promising at the moment.

[Movie Guy]

Lafayette - "Getting upset about trade will solve nothing."

You apparently aren't aware of the research that some of us posted at Brad Setser's blog during the past few years.

This issue isn't being approached from an emotional perspective by serious posters. We spelled the case for action in considerable detail.

[Movie Guy]

Here's my immigration humor for the morning:

Texas immigration poll

The latest telephone poll taken by the office of the Governor of Texas, December, 2006:

Question: Do people who live in Texas think illegal immigration is a serious problem?

A) 35% of respondents answered: "Yes, it is a serious problem."

B) 65% of respondents answered: "No es una problema serio."

[anne]

Notice the intimidation, always the intimidation because that is what intimidators do they intimidate. Notice how intimidated I am. Always lunatic bullying, all the time.

[anne]

"The CIA published a report a few years that forecast that advanced educational needs in the USA would decline in the future."

Stop American children before they become, yes, educated. Your intelligence agency at work, via lunatics.

[anne]

'A) 35% of respondents answered: "Yes, it is a serious problem."

'B) 65% of respondents answered: "No es una problema serio." '

Notice the ethnic stereotyping and meanness. I am so amused by ethnic meanness, but sadly not the least surprised.

[EBegoc]

Lafayette:
"The UK is el cheapo by European standards. A university education is largely tuition free in most European countries."

in what respect do you mean El Cheapo?

and the problem with a tuition free education is that you soon wind up with funding problems, as is the case in certain French universities.
as for the studentfinance program, it also provides you with fund for your living costs, enough to pay the rent, buy food. do you suggest this too should be given away for nothing to anyone?

[anne]

Ah, yes, too many educated French women and men. Imainge, all studying, say, social studies and, well, even Franch let alone Chinese. Eek.

[Movie Guy]

Just another typical group of bullshit posts by anne.

Here's my new warning sign for her presence: The anne Alert.

[EBegoc]

"Ah, yes, too many educated French women and men. Imainge, all studying, say, social studies and, well, even Franch let alone Chinese. Eek."

actually, the French speak French, not Franch.
and is Imainge a verb or a noun, or is it part the things you learn in your American English?

[anne]

Notice the intimidation, aolways the intimidation because that is what intimidators do, and notice the language used because intimidators will intimidate by all means when clubs are not going to work. I am so intimidated.

'A) 35% of respondents answered: "Yes, it is a serious problem."

'B) 65% of respondents answered: "No es una problema serio." '

Notice the ethnic stereotyping and meanness. I am so amused by ethnic meanness, but sadly not the least surprised.

[anne]

So, then, where were we? Too many educated Americans, too many educated French women and men. Remember the CIA told us so, and I was shocked, shocked when the CIA told us so so so. I am so shocked. Close Berkeley, immediately.

[anne]

There I was thinking we needed to leave Iraq, immediately, when all the time we just needed to leave Berkeley. Bless the CIA for warning us in time. Bless Joseph Wilson for warning us. The danger is Berkeley. Leave Berkeley, immediately. Then, we close down Franch (sic) schooling as well. Tra la.

[Movie Guy]

Time for an update:

Phase II anne Alert

[anne]

Always intimidation, all the time, because that is what lunatic intimidators do, they intimidate. Notice the language and notice the forms and structures of intimidation. Of course, notice how intimidated I am by lunatics.

'A) 35% of respondents answered: "Yes, it is a serious problem."

'B) 65% of respondents answered: "No es una problema serio." '

[Movie Guy]

dumbhead,

That was emailed to me by a friend, Hispanic professor, from Austin, Texas.

[Movie Guy]

anne's brick wall to blog knowledge and free speech

To hell with anne's bullshit.

[anne]

Always intimidation, all the time, because that is what lunatic intimidators do, they intimidate. Notice the language and notice the forms and structures of intimidation. Of course, notice how intimidated I am by lunatics.

'A) 35% of respondents answered: "Yes, it is a serious problem."

'B) 65% of respondents answered: "No es una problema serio." '

[Courtesy, my professor friend professor, courtesy.]

[Movie Guy]

The sum total of anne's so-called contributions to this main post and comment poster discussions:

There we have the same hateful hatefulness, always knowing the language to use to call forth the spirit of intolerance, the spirit of prejudice. Imagine my surprise. Always prejudice, all the time.
Posted by: anne | Feb 19, 2007 6:41:54 PM
Well, we could say leave Iraq immediately and attend to domestic needs such as for health care and college-university tuition and infrastructure development. We could allow for strrengthened unions; oh dear, imagine that. But, we prefer to spend $14 billion a month in Iraq. for tragic lunatic reasons. Go figure.
Posted by: anne | Feb 20, 2007 4:24:30 AM
"As for endless university degrees, true, a Phd in Ebonics... or some BS Social Studies diploma won't get you far."
A little innuendo of racism and more idiocy on education. Amazing how far fine Social Studies majors go.
Posted by: anne | Feb 21, 2007 2:11:47 AM
"As for endless university degrees, true, a Phd in Ebonics... or some BS Social Studies diploma won't get you far."
Yes; there is the innuendo of racism. And, yes, a social studies diploma takes students ever so far. Yes; an English or a history or a fine arts diploma happily takes students ever so far. Let us have ever so many more social studies majors.
Posted by: anne | Feb 21, 2007 4:04:56 AM
"The CIA published a report a few years that forecast that advanced educational needs in the USA would decline in the future."
Imagine how much more secure we can feel, knowing the intelligence services are working hard to discourgage American education. Idiocy on idiocy on idiocy.
Posted by: anne | Feb 21, 2007 4:08:15 AM
Ah, if only we might have a less educated America, there would be security of security. We could, say, begin to burn campus copies of Moby-Dick and intern English majors. (Can I too now become an intelligence agent?)
Posted by: anne | Feb 21, 2007 4:13:47 AM
The CIA published a report a few years that forecast that advanced educational needs in the USA would decline in the future."
Close all medical schools, now. Imagine we have hundreds of students going to medical school in Cuba, free, yes, free, but America's problem of problems is too much education. What is the opposite world of Superman's enemy? The bizarro world, I think, where up is down and hello is goodbye.
Posted by: anne | Feb 21, 2007 4:17:35 AM
Duh, I am an intelligence agent checking to see that there are no hidden copies of Moby-Dick in the house, Lady. Imagine, a white whale still subversive. A threat to America.
Posted by: anne | Feb 21, 2007 4:20:13 AM
http://www.princeton.edu/~batke/moby/moby_001.html
1851
Moby-Dick
Posted by: anne | Feb 21, 2007 4:22:00 AM
Call me "who," call me "what?" Ah, the tragedy and subversion of the American English major. Do you have CIA clearance to post that passage from Moby-Dick? Call me who?
Posted by: anne | Feb 21, 2007 4:26:43 AM
Notice the intimidation, always the intimidation because that is what intimidators do they intimidate. Notice how intimidated I am. Always lunatic bullying, all the time.
Posted by: anne | Feb 21, 2007 5:43:07 AM
"The CIA published a report a few years that forecast that advanced educational needs in the USA would decline in the future."
Stop American children before they become, yes, educated. Your intelligence agency at work, via lunatics.
Posted by: anne | Feb 21, 2007 5:44:36 AM
'A) 35% of respondents answered: "Yes, it is a serious problem."
'B) 65% of respondents answered: "No es una problema serio." '
Notice the ethnic stereotyping and meanness. I am so amused by ethnic meanness, but sadly not the least surprised.
Posted by: anne | Feb 21, 2007 5:48:22 AM
Ah, yes, too many educated French women and men. Imainge, all studying, say, social studies and, well, even Franch let alone Chinese. Eek.
Posted by: anne | Feb 21, 2007 6:21:14 AM
Notice the intimidation, aolways the intimidation because that is what intimidators do, and notice the language used because intimidators will intimidate by all means when clubs are not going to work. I am so intimidated.
'A) 35% of respondents answered: "Yes, it is a serious problem."
'B) 65% of respondents answered: "No es una problema serio." '
Notice the ethnic stereotyping and meanness. I am so amused by ethnic meanness, but sadly not the least surprised.
Posted by: anne | Feb 21, 2007 6:39:12 AM
There I was thinking we needed to leave Iraq, immediately, when all the time we just needed to leave Berkeley. Bless the CIA for warning us in time. Bless Joseph Wilson for warning us. The danger is Berkeley. Leave Berkeley, immediately. Then, we close down Franch (sic) schooling as well. Tra la.
Posted by: anne | Feb 21, 2007 6:44:37 AM
Always intimidation, all the time, because that is what lunatic intimidators do, they intimidate. Notice the language and notice the forms and structures of intimidation. Of course, notice how intimidated I am by lunatics.
'A) 35% of respondents answered: "Yes, it is a serious problem."
'B) 65% of respondents answered: "No es una problema serio." '
Posted by: anne | Feb 21, 2007 6:49:19 AM
Always intimidation, all the time, because that is what lunatic intimidators do, they intimidate. Notice the language and notice the forms and structures of intimidation. Of course, notice how intimidated I am by lunatics.
'A) 35% of respondents answered: "Yes, it is a serious problem."
'B) 65% of respondents answered: "No es una problema serio." '
[Courtesy, my professor friend professor, courtesy.]
Posted by: anne | Feb 21, 2007 7:06:57 AM

No posts of any value as related to this main post. Not one.

[anne]

"The CIA published a report a few years that forecast that advanced educational needs in the USA would decline in the future."

No; I have been so valuable, can you imagine a more valuable contribution? There is have been warning, afgainst warning of the desperate threats against America from, well, students and teachers. Imagine, we are being over-run by the over-educated and has I not found the secret CIA document I would never have known. (Secret?)

[Movie Guy]

anne drops in on this thread at 2:11:47 AM, Feb 21, 2007 and offered nothing but troll remarks designed to stir up other posters.

She posted 17 unrelated comments as of the time of this post since 2:11:47 AM. All babble. The normal junk.

anne's brick wall to blog knowledge and free speech

The anne Alert

The elitist clown killed yet another good conversation on an important subject.

[Movie Guy]

You're just a troll nutjob, anne. Nothing more.

Go to Hell, thread wrecker.

[anne]

Warning, Moby-Dick is coming to a university classroom near you. Possibly not just the book but the whale. Oh my, oh me. Moby-Dick is coming, along with Ishmael. (Notice the name?) Why should I call him, Ishmael? Why not, Larry? Larry, the whaler. Beware, Moby-Dick is coming. (CIA warning, white whale alert.)

[evagrius]

Interesting thread discussion following the usual ruts.

Education in the U.S. has never been highly regarded.
Training has but not education.

To be educated means that one knows the traditions and cultures handed down from generation to generation. It means that one's reason and logic are cultivated and utilised.

Education is seen with suspicious eyes in the U.S.

I'm always impressed by foreign engineers/ architects/ programmers etc; who are quite literate and knowledgeable about many subjects and quite comfortable discussing philosophy and religion, art and music.

U.S. engineers/ architects/ business people are, on the other hand, incredibly mute on such subjects.

They are well trained but they don't know nuthin' outside their field of expertise.

You can see the results in Congress where the level of education is fairly low though the level of legally trained and business trained people is quite high.

You can see the results in the "education" President.

[anne]

Evagrius"

"Education in the U.S. has never been highly regarded.
Training has but not education."

Actually, that was quite a fine comment. Careful though, the CIA is monitoring carefully, ever looking for the, well, over-educated American. What will they make of Barack Obama?

[anne]

From the term "cosmopolitan" on to the denignation of what it might mean to be a social studies major (actually, I am pleased to say our largest major in all) to the denignation what it might mean to offer free college-university education as Jefferson imagined, there is a scorn for what education can mean individually and socially.

Fortunately, we understand.

[Lafayette]

evagrius: "Education is seen with suspicious eyes in the U.S."

Remarkable assertion.

In the OECD countries the average of the total student population that continues on to a university degree is 25%. In Australia, Finland, Japan and the United States, the level is at 50%.

Americans may be suspicious about education, but they obtain one.

We can ask why the Finns are number 1 in the OECD sponsored PISA study of the quality of secondary school education, whilst the US is 15th (or thereabouts). In fact, we SHOULD ask the Finns why they are in first place.

The notion that education MUST lead to an occupation is erroneous. If anything, it should lead to a more knowledgeable person. The mistake is often made that "Johnny/JoAnne should be a doctor", when in fact children should be tested for aptitude and allowed to work out their own career venues under initial expert guidance. Which is what they do ultimately, anyway, but often without the guidance (that could have saved them time searching on thier own).

Most importantly, people have to learn how to work in the Information Age. (Sounds silly, doesn't it?) But, I am convinced that people, in fact, can learn skills that permit them to be more effective in the job.

I give this as an example: Which MBA curriculum has a course in effective public speaking and the art of designing a presentation in light of the anticipated subject and audience? Mostly, I suspect, companies are expected to offer this course.

Why is it that American engineering firms have had to give classes in English composition to engineers because the technical specifications they were writing were unreadable? Why is it that the English vocabulary of adult Americans is 60% of the British?

So much for communication skills ...

I could go on and will with anyone who cares to debate the subject: Wither education in the US?

[Movie Guy]

Lafayette - "Why is it that the English vocabulary of adult Americans is 60% of the British?"

I am told that is the case because most Americans still resent the Brits. Sort of a protest against their language, so to speak.... (hey, it was good try)

[anne]

Yes; there is an over-whelming desire by Americans to have their children well educated and a cultivated suspician of education. Yes; we have a superb educational system on all levels that can and should be much improved at all levels. Yes; we do a poor job of educating children living in poorer communities, and this must and can be changed.

We much need a federal-state revenue sharing program to dramatically reduce tuition at public colleges-universities.

[anne]

"Why is it that the English vocabulary of adult Americans is 60% of the British?"

Why is this simply rubbish?

[evagrius]

For U.S. views on education, I recommend the short story, "Marching Morons" by C.M. Kornbluth.

Written in the early 50's, it's still quite a good description.