"Nazis Run Our Space Program" -- Peace Activist Bruce Gag-Me

Uhhmm.. disposable paper underwear!..I bet we have the paper mills for
that. Even better, automated machinery, no workers needed..

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 23:05:39 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Exactly how long will it take to rebuild the textile mills, get the raw
materials imported or back into indigenous production, and train the
people to operate the machinery competently? Plus getting all the
patterns and sizes right for the clothing that is going to be made?
Right now you could find enough ex-textile workers to man the mills with
luck- will that be the case in say twenty years?

Herm
Astropics http://home.att.net/~hermperez

In article ,
says...

much snippage

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Yes, it seems obvious that China imposing an embargo on the US would
cause a national economy to implode, all right. It just wouldn't be
ours.



The Chinese are used to living at a far lower standard of living than we
are, and could soak that up- they have the rest of the world to trade
with if we leave. The manufacturing potential they have developed for
export could also be used to raise the standard of living in China itself.
I still think this is fate coming to bite Churchill's "English Speaking
Race" in the ass as payback for the loathsome Opium War. ;-)

As the American homefront reaction during WWII proves, we *can* suck up
hits to our standard of living, if we see them as a) temporary and b) a
means to an important goal.

That said, I think this discussion misses the point a bit. The consumer
products market is a big deal to both China and the US, of course, but
an embargo between the two countries wouldn't necessarily cause disaster
for either. We don't exist in a vacuum, economic or otherwise. If we
stopped trading with China, another manufacturing country with low labor
costs would step in and pick up the slack. Our products would find more
customers elsewhere, too (though losing Chinese customers isn't our
primary concern right now).

The far larger problem, IMHO, is the increasing foreign ownership of
Treasury Bills. Japan and China each own a significant fraction of
America's debt. As an American, that's not really a comfortable feeling
for me.

--

"The problem isn't that there are so | Doug Van Dorn
many fools; it's that lightning isn't |
distributed right." -Mark Twain

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 23:05:39 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



Rand Simberg wrote:

We certainly could, if we had to--we did once, after all. We'd be a
much poorer nation for it, though.



Exactly how long will it take to rebuild the textile mills, get the raw
materials imported or back into indigenous production, and train the
people to operate the machinery competently? Plus getting all the
patterns and sizes right for the clothing that is going to be made?

A while. The world won't come to an end if we have to go a few years
without buying new underwear, or clothes. Clothes have gotten so
cheap that you can barely give them away to Good Will any more.

But if China wants to wreck their economy by not selling us textiles,
places like Pakistan and Thailand would be happy to fill in the gap.
After all, we've been screwing the Pakis with textile restrictions
(amazingly stupid, given we need Mussharaf's support in the war) for
years. Though with that idiot Hollings gone, maybe we can have a more
rational policy.

In sci.space.policy Pat Flannery wrote:


Doug... wrote:

The far larger problem, IMHO, is the increasing foreign ownership of
Treasury Bills. Japan and China each own a significant fraction of
America's debt. As an American, that's not really a comfortable feeling
for me.



Me neither. Nor is China's linking the value of the Yuan to the dollar
despite our protests.
They're starting to free it up from the dollar, but it's nowhere near
free floating yet.
Then there's the threat that they'll dump their dollar holdings, and
send its value on the international money markets through the
floorboards as other countries follow suite. They've got around 610
billion in dollars on hand at the moment:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._china_yuan_dc

I have pointed out the US foreign dept problem before - and it has
really long ago passed the point where it realisticly is a "problem"
and a lever to influence US policy. It was received with the general
"America the invincible" attitude so prelevant in this group. But
in general, USD nominated dept remains popular in China and countries
(and banks in them) like Austria, Italy and Germany are cashing in
on it by issuing such bonds (hardly a new development though).

But the only way to fix the foreign dept problem is for the US to
take fiscal steps it is not prepared to take. Or really even talk
about.


Pat

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Wal-Mart; which is one of the few surviving stores in my town of 15,000,
thanks to their running everybody else out of business with all their
Chinese imports.

Oh, piffle. Wal-Mart is a problem only for those businesses that try to
compete on Wal-Mart's terms, instead of on their own terms. Offer something
the public is willing to pay for that Wal-Mart doesn't, and you stay in
business. Heck, my dad used to own a hardware store, and when Wal-Mart moved
in, we lost two freeloading customers, only one of which had ever bought
anything in the store, and that sale took almost two hours for I believe
was less than $10. These two "customers" loved to squeeze me for advice, but
weren't willing to buy my stuff, so they were no loss at all. I solved one
of them by getting a clear understanding of his drain problem, and while
chatting about nothing, assembled what he needed faster than he could take
notes. Then I took it to the sales counter and started to ring it up. He
sputtered and tried to negotiate price, and I promptly began disassembling
the drain and putting the parts where he couldn't see them. He left and I
never saw him again- I know he went to Wal-Mart, which *didn't* carry what
he needed most- someone willing to teach him how to be a plumber for free.

Wal-Mart didn't do dick to my sales.

I buy socks, underwear, shoes, and shirts at Wal-Mart
for less than I did in 1985 despite inflation, which shows you just how
much China undercut the American textile industry's indigenous
production capacity.

That only happens if that's how the profits are made. The Chinese government
does not assume that its citizens are too stupid to make their own decisions
as to the value of their labor. If American industry cannot or won't carry
the cost of American labor, then it *should* go overseas. You cannot
simultaneously demand more money and more benefits and increase the cost of
labor through more regulations and expect a business to remain in business.

The Chinese are used to living at a far lower standard of living than we
are

*And thus, the light shines!*

If keeping jobs were really important to America, then we'd learn to live on
a whole lot less than we do. I don't blame China for the problem.

Scott Hedrick wrote:

*And thus, the light shines!*

If keeping jobs were really important to America, then we'd learn to live on
a whole lot less than we do. I don't blame China for the problem.



I don't think increasing austerity for its citizens should be the
primary economic goal of a evolving civilization.
That sounds almost Spartan in its inspiration.

Pat

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 17:14:15 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Chomko) wrote:

Thanks. I believe the point is that despite China's human rights
violations, as we see it, we grant a wavier every single year to allow
them normal trade relations, formerly nation most favored WRT trade. Huh,

The term "most favored nation" does not mean that there is one nation
favored above all others. We have scores of "most favored nations"
and the People's Republic of China is just one of them. It's no more
favored than are any of the others.

There are only two kinds of countries, MFNs and the others. We're not
picking our favorites, we're just making trade easier.

The PRC is not the US's most favorite or favored nation. The UK is,
as demonstrated by the Special Relationship. We don't share
intelligence data with the PRC but we do with the UK.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

In sci.space.policy Scott Hedrick wrote:

*And thus, the light shines!*

If keeping jobs were really important to America, then we'd learn to live on
a whole lot less than we do. I don't blame China for the problem.


I'm sure we'll see a bunch of attempts by US isolationists to leave
WTO *and* keep the benefits of being there over the next 10 years.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In sci.space.policy Pat Flannery wrote:


Scott Hedrick wrote:

*And thus, the light shines!*

If keeping jobs were really important to America, then we'd learn to live on
a whole lot less than we do. I don't blame China for the problem.



I don't think increasing austerity for its citizens should be the
primary economic goal of a evolving civilization.
That sounds almost Spartan in its inspiration.

It depends on what your goal is. Those desiring US world dominance
while not caring about the underclasses and other subhumans wouldn't
have anything against such a result.


Pat

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 23:47:01 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



Scott Hedrick wrote:

*And thus, the light shines!*

If keeping jobs were really important to America, then we'd learn to live on
a whole lot less than we do. I don't blame China for the problem.



I don't think increasing austerity for its citizens should be the
primary economic goal of a evolving civilization.
That sounds almost Spartan in its inspiration.

Yet, protectionism would do exactly that.