Has the U.S. lost it's edge?

[esskreemr]

Are we slowly becoming a second-rate player in the global stage?

The U.S. doesn't seem to be holding its own anymore. Politicians like to shrug it off as a natural progression of the economy. To what is the economy progressing? What's the next level?

The U.S. lags behind in stem cell research and broadband usage. We no longer dominate in science, space exploration. The only reason we don't have double-digit inflation is because of cheap imports from China.

Where is the U.S. economy headed? Are we in the final stages of America's Golden Days? In what areas do we actually still hold an enviable lead? In what areas are we slipping?

[neevel]

These things come and go in cycles. Back in the '70s lots of people were worrying that the West was tipping towards a permanent stagflationary economic torpor, that OPEC was going to be telling us how to live our daily lives, that the Cold War was probably the Warsaw Pact's game to win...

What is clear is that the era of the US being the only dominant power is coming to an end. We may not decline in an absolute sense, but as the EU, China (and further on down the line, India) come up, the relative dominance that the US had following the end of the cold war will diminish.

[MikeHarm]

When the money runs out we're screwed I think.

[latenight]

We'll just make more.

[cowpaste]

*coughbushcough*

[Inquartata]

http://www.lo7.net/communityChannels...069487f7dc9a39

Oh, but wait, that conflicts with the logically forceful and ever-so-eloquent "coughbushcough" , so it can't possibly be true, can it....

[MikeHarm]

Thats what every country that experienced hyperinflation said too.

We'll just make more.

[latenight]

I was being sarcastic.

We could always default on our debt, I mean, what's anyone else going to do about it.......






also sarcastic for the sarcasm impaired

[Drifter]

http://www.lo7.net/communityChannels...069487f7dc9a39

Oh, but wait, that conflicts with the logically forceful and ever-so-eloquent "coughbushcough" , so it can't possibly be true, can it....

Come on Inq, you're not even trying with that doc. Did you even read the link? Or maybe the link you posted was intended for another thread.
The link says and I Quote, "Now, something surprising has happened in many sectors of the consumer electronics business: U.S.-based companies are on top.

Of course, Asian companies still dominate many categories.

Despite tough times in Japan, Sony rules the business of televisions, video-game consoles and digital cameras. Other Asian companies control the markets for cellphones, DVD players and VCRs.

Even the U.S.-based companies that are market leaders rely on third-party manufacturers based in - you guessed it, Asia - to make the goods that carry their brand names."

How exactly is that "proof" postive that our economy is heading in the right direction? Mind you not that I think bush is the cause of America slipping from it's post as maker of the worlds good, but at least come up with something that says something more than, US companies are doing well... yeah they rely on nothing but other non-US companies but thier doing well... Really. No Really. How prey tell is this ANY more logically forceful than *coughbushcough*?

[esskreemr]

of this:
http://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...tronics19.html

[jeff]

I'm of the opinion that these effects are transient and changeable, rather than permanent and inevitable. I've witnessed several cycles: the period when Japan was going to be the dominant player in technology, manufacturing and high finance, and the US would be reduced to penury, the transition of the Smokestack Belt of manufacturing into the Rust Belt, and similar with the first wave of energy shocks in the 1970s. None of these were permanent, and our innovation created new waves of prosperity.

That doesn't mean we should be complacent. There are real issues that need to be addressed: Massive deficits, a weak dollar AND a bad trade balance (the former is supposed to help prevent the latter), a weak educational system and less imported talent, increased competition, excessive dependence on oil that will only increase in cost, and the increased abiility for work to be executed across borders. If we stick our heads in the sand (I should say "continue to stick our heads in the sand") we will do poorly, but by no means is it inevitable. But, it will require honesty to admit that we're not on the right track with a lot of policies, and the willpower to act on it.

[Drifter]

of this:
http://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...tronics19.html

Ok you've posted an expanded version of Inq's article in which we read the views of three people on how well they think the US tech sector is doing IN THE US. Nothing about how the US tech sector is doing in relation to others worldwide. No factual information like what the real revenue, market cap, or sales numbers for the companies discussed in relation to thier competitors. Just the feelings of some people on how well the tech sector is doing.

Perhaps an article in which the disscussion of how FSAB 123 isn't going to crater the tech industries in the US 'cause they're so strong against world markets would be more convincing. Of course such an article doesn't exist much as I would like to believe it does. Or maybe even an article which doesn't use HP as an example of a market leader when they aren't even in the top 10 in revenue or market cap in the tech sector.

I'm simply asking for more, particularly if one is going to chide someone for posting a humourous note stating thier opinion about a president. *coughwhatsgoodforthegoosecough*

[esskreemr]

My post wasn't supporting or contending inq's post. I just merely happened on a more complete version. For the most part I agree with Jeff. There are plenty of indications that the economy is shifting. For Good or For Bad? Who really knows. The short-term effects appear to be not-so-good for American workers but are apparently really good for top-level execs. Will this shift be sustained? Again who knows.

As far as President Bush is concerned, I don't think that he's the leader that will take us into the new economy. He seems more concerned with ensuring the status quo is met.

There are several issues that his admin could have taken on as a "check" to make sure that we are moving in the right direction. IMO, I would give him a "D".

The issues:

• Outsourcing jobs to foreign countries. There is a difference between protectionist/isolationist policies and actively encouraging the flow of jobs out of America. If it's inevitible, ok, not much we can do about it. I don't want to provide tax credits to Microsoft to open a state-of-the-art R&D facility in Bangledesh, however.
  
• Energy supply. No matter how you tweak the formula, our dependance on foreign oil is going to be a continual plateau for our economy. It's time to move on. We will always need oil, it has a multitude of other uses that currently cannot be replaced. No reason we shouldn't be moving full tilt at finding another source. While we focus on drilling new wells in pristine Alaskan frontier territory, other countries are developing new ways to use what we have. Other countries are putting in place prototype systems to replace the use of oil for transportation. It will just be a new set of countries leading us around by our nosering.
  
• Stem Cells, Stem Cells, Stem Cells. Bush is adamantly opposed to stem cell research. Soon we'll be traveling to Mexico for the best Parkinson treatment facility in North America.
  
• Software patents. Let's see... what happens when you tell the USPTO that they need to support themselves with fees. Lil Mikey patents the sideways swing and suddenly everyone is afraid to swing because they might get sued. Lawyers win, innovation loses.

I'm sure I missed a few. The Pres may not be solely responsible, but he can set the agenda and push things through. I'm not trying to turn this into a Bush bashing session, there is plenty of blame to go around for both sides.

[jeff]

I'm just going to touch on one subject from esskreemr's post: oil prices. Its importance cannot be overestimated. In the last 30 years you can see where it made a tremendous impact on every part of the economy, and politics as well: whether the inflation of the 1970s or even contributing to the collapse of the Soviet Union. I did some consulting for Exxon during the 1980s, and was the beneficiary of education on the effect of oil prices on, well, everything.

Let's me enlarge on the reference to the Soviet Union: They lost the SDI arms race and all the other arms races - leading to the collapse of the USSR - shortly after oil prices plummeted from $30/barrel to $10 (see http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/st...1918-1999.html for figures in 1995 dollars). They were very dependent on oil revenues, and when global prices collapsed, they could no longer afford the trappings of empire: from subsidizing Castro to maintaining modern armed forces.

On the other hand, our economy is based on the expectation of very low oil prices. The way we distribute goods, the way we've moved from energy efficient cities to energy wasting suburbs, the number of miles we drive and the types of car we buy. Whether due to political reasons with the unstable and unfriendly Middle East, or simply because we are not replenishing cheaply exploitable oil resources (all the easily drilled and processed oil is going to be gone some day - a day sooner than I'd like to see), that assumption of cheap oil is just not going to be true and we're going to be in a world of hurt. I don't want us to collapse because we didn't prepare for this by weaning ourselves off dead dinosaurs.

[cowpaste]

Still Bush.

[Army Fencer]

The short-term effects appear to be not-so-good for American workers but are apparently really good for top-level execs. Will this shift be sustained? Again who knows.

I think that we're shifting from a nation built on products to a nation built on ideas. The top-executives benefit right now, but it will be interesting if they continue to benefit, as information and ideas are becoming more free.

I think the power class in the near future is the creative class. They will be the ones to capitalize on the changing times and economy better than even some of the older big businesses.

It's also important to continue to encourage small businesses and entrepenuers, so that we continue to develop new ideas for the changing times. This is being done, but I'd like to see it done more.

• Outsourcing jobs to foreign countries. There is a difference between protectionist/isolationist policies and actively encouraging the flow of jobs out of America. If it's inevitible, ok, not much we can do about it. I don't want to provide tax credits to Microsoft to open a state-of-the-art R&D facility in Bangledesh, however.

Insourcing also occurs from both Europe and Japan.

Outsourcing is inevitable, and I don't think it should be fought that hard. Outsourcing is better for our companies as well as the nations overseas.

The biggest problem with outsourcing, though, is trying to find jobs for the skilled labor that loses their job in the US. I don't know what to do about them, but I think efforts should be made to ensure through education that the next US labor market is flexible enough to shift from one skill labor field to another. (Thankfully, there will never be a shortage of doctors, but I wouldn't mind shifting to research.)

• Energy supply. No matter how you tweak the formula, our dependance on foreign oil is going to be a continual plateau for our economy.

I agree that we need to focus more attention on alternative fuel supplies. It's stupid of us not to.

I've heard various theories about the oil supply. On one hand, I've heard my thermodynamics teacher say that if the world's population continues to expand as it has, and we continue to consume fuel at the same rate, by 2050, an oil ball the size of the earth would be consumed. I've also heard theories that oil isn't dead dinosaurs, but may be a product of forces in the earth's mantle (and, theoretically, is renewable).

Whatever the case, I agree that we need to be more self-reliant. I know that Bush has at least talked about renewable resources, so I think it's moving in the right direction. I can hope that it goes quickly and is effectively.

• Stem Cells, Stem Cells, Stem Cells. Bush is adamantly opposed to stem cell research. Soon we'll be traveling to Mexico for the best Parkinson treatment facility in North America.

I really don't think that stem cells are our panacea. Just because it's in the media eye all the time doesn't mean that it will work miracles.

• Software patents...Lawyers win, innovation loses.

The judicial system really needs work. The present sue crazy culture today is terrible. It hurts businesses large and small because of the lack of innovation and the resultant stagnation. It hurts doctors and our health care system--particularly when it comes to malpractice. It hurts the government that gets quagmired in frivolous lawsuits, legal fees, and layer of bureaucracy. It hurts the little guy who thinks he can win big against corporation A, doctor B, or the government, and, after all the legal fees are over, wins nothing.

***

There are things that need to be worked on, and the current political culture makes that difficult. But that was by design. The Constitution makes it that way. Things will change, and they will be for the better. I have faith in the Constitution and the US as a whole.

Other countries will gain power because homeostasis works in any system. And that's okay. We will continue to be a rich country, and we will continue to be a powerful country. If all else fails, we're protected by two pacifistic nations and two large oceans.

[Inquartata]

of this:
http://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...tronics19.html

Yes, thanks Ess, I couldn't find that last night for the life of me.

[Inquartata]

Just the feelings of some people on how well the tech sector is doing.

Ah, so you feel that somewhere in the world there's a company that's more dominant in, say, MP3 sales than Apple? Do tell. Or is it just a "feeling" you have?

The point was, as Jeff noted, that instead of the long-predicted senescence and descent into obscurity of the mature US economy there has been something of a renaissance of innovation and development of late. Technological innovation is what drives growth in the industrialized world today, and what will save mankind from the many looming problems he faces, from resource depletion to pollution to energy production. If anything can, that is. So it's fair to focus on tech from that perspective. Would you prefer we point to our military preeminence?

Or maybe even an article which doesn't use HP as an example of a market leader when they aren't even in the top 10 in revenue or market cap in the tech sector.

Do you really think size is a good indicator of innovative capacity???

a humourous note stating thier opinion about a president.

Except that it wasn't really humorous. It was a smarmy, smirking partisan shot masquerading as humor. I have gotten really sick of those over the last election cycle.

[Inquartata]

Still Bush.

Thank you, Deep Thought II.

[esskreemr]

I think that we're shifting from a nation built on products to a nation built on ideas. The top-executives benefit right now, but it will be interesting if they continue to benefit, as information and ideas are becoming more free.

I think the power class in the near future is the creative class. They will be the ones to capitalize on the changing times and economy better than even some of the older big businesses.

Uh oh, a nation built on the backs of starving artists? Sounds like trouble to me

It's also important to continue to encourage small businesses and entrepenuers, so that we continue to develop new ideas for the changing times. This is being done, but I'd like to see it done more.

Personally, as the Wal-Mart culture takes an firmer grip, I expect a counter-movement in the next few years. Americans for the most part may be sheep following the best deal, but it doesn't take much to start a rebellion against the powers that be. I already hear people talking about Wal-Mart as the evil empire. The backlash has already started in many communities. The tide will catch up, Wal-Mart's profits won't increase forever. Imagine what will happen when they start closing these SuperCenters in small-town America. A vicious backlash will no doubt ensue. I wouldn't hold your breath because it will most likely take a while.

Insourcing also occurs from both Europe and Japan.

Outsourcing is inevitable, and I don't think it should be fought that hard. Outsourcing is better for our companies as well as the nations overseas.

Why should we worry about "our companies"? They are just trying to get the most bang for the buck. Employee salaries go down, or increase at a frighteningly miserly rate, company executive salaries, bonuses, and long-term incentives climb through the roof. Again, should we supply tax credits to multinats who are actively moving operations to other countries?

The biggest problem with outsourcing, though, is trying to find jobs for the skilled labor that loses their job in the US. I don't know what to do about them, but I think efforts should be made to ensure through education that the next US labor market is flexible enough to shift from one skill labor field to another. (Thankfully, there will never be a shortage of doctors, but I wouldn't mind shifting to research.)

How about more "worker" owned companies? I believe that this may be a trend to look for and encourage in the future.

I agree that we need to focus more attention on alternative fuel supplies. It's stupid of us not to.

I've heard various theories about the oil supply. On one hand, I've heard my thermodynamics teacher say that if the world's population continues to expand as it has, and we continue to consume fuel at the same rate, by 2050, an oil ball the size of the earth would be consumed.

I've heard the same theories. I suspect some is doom and gloom others just outright optimism.

I've also heard theories that oil isn't dead dinosaurs, but may be a product of forces in the earth's mantle (and, theoretically, is renewable).

As for the renewable oil theory, I was excited at first but grew more and more skeptical as I read the lit. A red flag was raised when the author (salaried oil man) talked about how they've went back to "depleted" oil fields to find that the oil had mysteriously "replenished" itself. This sounds suspiciously like what would happen when someone pulls up shop at an oil well after using "atmospheric pressure" rigs, caps it off, returns 10 years later with a "forced pressure" rig and suddenly has 3+ times the oil available. The oil hasn't replenished itself, more oil is now available because of expanding technology.

I'm willing to keep an open mind, but I haven't heard anything of merit from other sources.

Whatever the case, I agree that we need to be more self-reliant. I know that Bush has at least talked about renewable resources, so I think it's moving in the right direction. I can hope that it goes quickly and is effectively.

Talk is cheap, so isn't the $1.2 billion dollars Bush pledged for fuel cell research. Bush's talk about our energy needs has seemed to focus on Cheap Energy by opening up new sources of oil.

Let's take the $1-3 billion a year that we are giving out to companies recieving the "Synfuel" tax credit (there are companies who spray coal with pine tar and recieve huge tax credits for using it), and apply it to alternative energy research. By the way, this was Reagan's doing and hasn't been addressed by anyone dem or repub in the last 20 years. So you can't blame Bush for this one. Of course, HE hasn't done anything to stop it either. That's one out of many.

[quote=Army Fencer}
I really don't think that stem cells are our panacea. Just because it's in the media eye all the time doesn't mean that it will work miracles.
[/quote]

They may not be the panacea, but they are currently the holy grail for research and thusly research funds. Better to hedge our bets and stay ahead of the market then to sit back and wait it out.

The judicial system really needs work. The present sue crazy culture today is terrible. It hurts businesses large and small because of the lack of innovation and the resultant stagnation. It hurts doctors and our health care system--particularly when it comes to malpractice. It hurts the government that gets quagmired in frivolous lawsuits, legal fees, and layer of bureaucracy. It hurts the little guy who thinks he can win big against corporation A, doctor B, or the government, and, after all the legal fees are over, wins nothing.

I think everybody agrees that reform is needed at some level. There have already been many states that have not just eyed reform, but have taken legislative steps. Perhaps instead of declaring all trial lawyers as enemy of the state, we can take a look at the results of this legislation and use it to continually tweak the system. For instance, in states that tort reform was enacted, malpractice insurance continued to increase, albeit at a slower rate. Maybe we're listening to the wrong people

Other countries will gain power because homeostasis works in any system. And that's okay. We will continue to be a rich country, and we will continue to be a powerful country. If all else fails, we're protected by two pacifistic nations and two large oceans.

Because of technology we helped spearhead (GPS, missile design), that buffer still exists but is no longer impenetrable.