Carpe Diem

Manufacturing led US economy in growth last year, and would be world’s 10th largest economy as a separate country

Rank Country GDP in 2012 (trillions)
1 United States $15.68
2 China $8.22
3 Japan $5.96
4 Germany $3.40
5 France $2.61
6 United Kingdom $2.44
7 Brazil $2.39
8 Russia $2.02
9 Italy $2.01
10 US Manufacturing $1.86
11 India $1.82
12 Canada $1.81

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released data today on “Gross Domestic Product by Industry” for 2012 with details on the contributions to the nation’s economic output last year that originated from 20 different private-sector industry groups and two government categories (federal and state/local). Here are some highlights of the report:

1. Of the 22 industry groups, 19 made a positive contribution to the real GDP growth last year of 2.2%, and three made a negative contribution (the two government categories and the industry group: Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting).

2. Among the 22 industry groups, durable manufacturing led the US economy at 9.1%, which was by far the highest growth rate of any industry, and overall manufacturing grew at a rate of 6.2%. Following manufacturing, the information sector had the next highest growth rate of 5.8%.

3. Total US manufacturing output last year reached $1.866 trillion, which established a new record high for current-dollar manufacturing output in a single year, breaking the previous record in 2011 of $1.73 trillion. In constant dollars, last year’s total manufacturing output was just slightly below the record for factory output established in 2007, before the recession.  Durable manufacturing output, adjusted for inflation, exceeded $1 trillion (in 2005 dollars) for the first time, and rose to a new record high.

4. If US manufacturing were counted as a separate economy, it would rank as the tenth largest national economy in the world, see chart above (IMF data here for GDP in 2012).  The $1.866 trillion of output produced in America’s factories last year was just slightly below the $2.1 trillion in GDP for the entire economy of Italy, and ahead of the entire national output in India ($1.82 trillion) and Canada ($1.81 trillion).

5. Real value added for construction increased last year by 3.2%, following eight consecutive years of contraction, reflecting strong growth in private residential construction in 2012.  This is more evidence that 2012 was the “year of the housing recovery.”

MP: Measured by growth rates in economic output, the manufacturing sector of the economy clearly remains at the forefront of the economic expansion, with especially strong growth in the production of durable goods like automobiles, machinery, appliances, computers and electronic products, and furniture. The manufacturing sector grew last year almost three times faster (6.2%) than the overall economy (2.2%), and the durable goods manufacturing grew more than four times faster (9.1%) than the overall US economy.  Of the 2.2% expansion in real GDP last year, about one-third of that growth came from US manufacturing (see Table 2 of the BEA report), even though manufacturing output last year represented only about 12% of total GDP.

Along with manufacturing output that reached new record highs in current dollars in each of the last two years, and is now close to a record high in constant dollars, the US manufacturing sector earned record profits in each of the last two years, totaling more than $1 trillion for 2011 and 2012 combined. Flush with record-level profits, the manufacturing sector has never been financially healthier than it is today and the future of American manufacturing has never looked brighter. After years of negative reports about the decline of American manufacturing, it’s time to recognize that US manufacturing is alive and well – it’s leading the economic recovery, and poised for even greater growth in the future. Manufacturing remains a critical sector of the US economy, and its importance can be understood by realizing that the output produced by America’s factories is the economic equivalent of adding the entire economic output of Italy, India or Canada to the US economy.

35 thoughts on “Manufacturing led US economy in growth last year, and would be world’s 10th largest economy as a separate country

  1. Sorry, not buying this stuff!!! I work in Mfg. (Large Corp) my employers business is in Automotive, aircraft, and defence.
    Our business is down by a 1/3 over last year. the orders come in at a rate like a driping faucet.

    • Mike,

      Professor Perry’s post did not state that all manufacturing industries and all manufacturing companies are growing. Rather, he said that U.S. manfacturing overall was leading the growth in GDP.

      Also, please note that the GDP by industry data Mark is reporting is for 2012, not 2013. So it is very possible that manufacturing could have led growth in 2012 but has perhaps slowed in 2013. Your observation was that 2013 is lower than 2012 – but only for your company.

      If you want to see a more revent indication of manufacturing in the U.S., you could look at the Federal Reserve Board Beige Book. The most recent Beige Book was released one week ago. It shows that defense manufacturing is definitely weak. But it also provides indications that other manufacturing industries are strong, including: gasoline; chemicals; construction materials and equipment; some medical equipment manufacturing; and food processing.

      • When the US government buys so much military hardware and that hardware is overpriced and consumes capital that could better be used in providing goods and services for consumers the higher number is a negative, not a positive. The US can bump up the number by manufacturing pyramids or aircraft carriers but that would not lead to positive outcomes for the general economy.

  2. “… So when Mr. van Agtmael says he sees an under appreciated investment opportunity, he is worth listening to. When he visited China last year, one manufacturing executive after another complained to him about American competition, “something I had never heard in 40 years in Asia,” he says.

    Mr. van Agtmael points out that labor costs in China have been rising roughly 15% annually while stagnating in the U.S. Meanwhile, oceans of cheap oil and natural gas are flowing from American shale.

    The U.S. is well ahead of China in cellphone infrastructure, he says; it also is advancing faster in three-dimensional printing and the use of robots in factories. At least 200 companies have relocated plants from offshore to U.S. locations, estimates Mr. van Agtmael.

    “A decade ago, nine out of 10 companies would tell you they were thinking about building their next plant in China,” he says. “Today it’s more like three out of 10, and maybe five out of that 10, say they want to build in the U.S.”” — WSJ

    Wait a minute, I thought that they were going to rule the world?

      • re: DOD spending. Yes.. it would be interesting to see what percentage of “manufacturing” in the US is to produce Defense hardware both domestic and sold and/or given away as “foreign aid” overseas.

        • It is not just DOD spending. Governments spend a lot of money on goods that the public would not buy. Obama and state governments have spent money on installing solar panels, purchasing electric cars, installing waterless urinals, and other such nonsense.

  3. Please Ben Bernanke, bring unto us an even cheaper dollar. Then we can manufacture goods again in the USA, and have work and jobs and wealth.

    The strong dollar was strong alright—-it flattened the US industrial base.

    What effing morons ever liked the strong dollar?

    • Yes, Larry, low skilled workers are at the bottom of the labor chain everywhere. The solution is not to inhibit automation and robots – which are the advances which have greatly increased our standard of living. The solution to the declining usefulness of low-skilled workers if to increase skill levels. Seems pretty obvious, doesn’t it?

      • @JohnDewey – re: low skill – more education

        totally agree.

        One of the things perhaps under-appreciated is the size and scope of the US education infrastructure.

        we have an tremendous existing capacity to educate and train our workforce especially in knowledge-based fields.

        in fact, robots are likely to replace low-skilled workers in countries that don’t have the level of education infrastructure/capacity that we have.

        • Larry: “in fact, robots are likely to replace low-skilled workers in countries that don’t have the level of education infrastructure/capacity that we have.”

          I agree. Technology can be easily exported to such nations. But I don’t think the Asian manufacturing giants fall into that category. For the most part they have skilled workers, high technology, and education systems to maintain parity with the U.S.

          As I see it, China, Japan, and India are not so much competitors as they are partners in advancing the living standards of the entire globe.

          Focusing on geographical competitiveness is a waste of time, and a dangerous game for governments to be playing. Rather, each company, regardless of location. should be concerned about what other companies in their industry are doing. Each parent all over the globe should be concerned about what skills their children are learning. Each worker should take responsibility for maintaining and imporving his own skill set.

          Government is not the answer to anything related to competitiveness. Individual responsibility is.

          • re: ” Government is not the answer to anything related to competitiveness. Individual responsibility is.”

            in terms of countries competing against each other, as opposed to improving their own productivity which in turn benefits their own people – I agree.

            but do you not think govt has any legitimate role in commerce – infrastructure, education, roads, pipelines, public rights-of-way for electricity, utilities, etc?

            surely you do… as every industrialized country – on the planet – has govt involved in those things and the governments that do not – are inferior in terms of productivity.

          • “Government is not the answer to anything related to competitiveness. Individual responsibility is.”

            It certainly is the only entity that can keep out illiterate ditch diggers crossing over from Mexico by the millions.

          • I think if the Govt did not use eminent domain to build highways, give right-of-ways to railroads and force other property owners to let oil and gas, electric companies cross their land that we’d be a lot less competitive and productive.

          • I think if the Govt did not use eminent domain to build highways, give right-of-ways to railroads and force other property owners to let oil and gas, electric companies cross their land that we’d be a lot less competitive and productive.

            You need to learn. Most roads are built by developers who want to sell homes to individuals.

            The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society

          • “I think if the Govt did not use eminent domain to build highways, give right-of-ways to railroads and force other property owners to let oil and gas, electric companies cross their land that we’d be a lot less competitive and productive.”

            I agree with that, and yet you like to go off on rants against “crony capitalist” oil companies that need to build pipelines to move their product. The founders anticipated ED in the 5th amendment: “..nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

          • you have two problems:

            1. – it’s NOT public USE
            2. – the Compensation is NOT a negotiated amount
            but an imposed amount.

            what justifies the govt getting involved in forcing one property owner to give their property to another property owner for the other property owners own private benefit?

            what justifies that?

            A highway is a direct public use and the justification is that it does directly benefit the public but even then one would have to admit – that it is a unique task that only govt could do – and thus a rationale for govt to be involved in commerce.

          • “what justifies the govt getting involved in forcing one property owner to give their property to another property owner for the other property owners own private benefit?”

            Well, the state laws, for one. I know Texas is struggling over this issue right now. If oil companies could build pipelines without crossing over into private property they would gladly do it to avoid the expense and bad publicity. The reality is the pipelines need to be built.

            It’s not an easy answer, and the property rights question is legitimate, but it’s obvious you’ve merely latched onto it as part of your rubdown boy duty for your boyfriend Obama. You wouldn’t be relentlessly bringing ED up if he had already approved Keystone.

            http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/09/28/eminent-domain-casts-its-long-shadow-over-the-texas-legislature/

          • re: ” “what justifies the govt getting involved in forcing one property owner to give their property to another property owner for the other property owners own private benefit?”

            Well, the state laws, for one. I know Texas is struggling over this issue right now. If oil companies could build pipelines without crossing over into private property they would gladly do it to avoid the expense and bad publicity. The reality is the pipelines need to be built.”

            state and federal laws don’t justify the act though – they just make it “legal” the same way I could claim that other laws that you hate and disagree with are “legal”.

            what I am asking is what justifies govt favoring one property owner over another in forcing him to turn over his land or the use of his land to another property owner.

            what’s the moral reason for doing that?

            “It’s not an easy answer, and the property rights question is legitimate, but it’s obvious you’ve merely latched onto it as part of your rubdown boy duty for your boyfriend Obama. You wouldn’t be relentlessly bringing ED up if he had already approved Keystone.”

            actually the reason I’m bringing it up only is tangentially related to Keystone. The whole area of the govt taking personal property from one person and giving it to another – at the same time people are complaining about crony capitalism and the govt picking winners and losers sounds like we’re treating ED differently when it sounds not much different.

            so why do we allow it? I’m just looking for the usual answer given… what’s the reason why owners of gas and oil can take other people’s property to get their product to market? Is that a legitimate role for govt?

          • what I am asking is what justifies govt favoring one property owner over another in forcing him to turn over his land or the use of his land to another property owner.

            Why is it that you can see things clearly on an issue like eminent domain for pipelines but can’t see that you cannot justify the THEFT that you call taxation? It is the same thing my friend and by now you should understand that. If forcing people to give up their land to build a pipeline is wrong, and it is, so is forcing them to give up a part of their earnings to the government or anyone else.

          • “what JUSTIFIES the govt getting involved in forcing one property owner to give their property to another property owner for the other property owners own private benefit?”

            Well, the state laws, for one….

            The law is not justification for anything. When many people ask about justifying something they want an answer to, why is it right or moral that something is so. There were state laws that runaway slaves be sent back. They could not really be JUSTIFIED on any moral grounds.

            It’s not an easy answer, and the property rights question is legitimate, but it’s obvious you’ve merely latched onto it as part of your rubdown boy duty for your boyfriend Obama. You wouldn’t be relentlessly bringing ED up if he had already approved Keystone.

            I wish that you boys would stop pretending that the GOP was somehow different than the Democrats and stuck to debating the issues. Both parties are full or corrupt charlatans who are little more than parasites that live off the productive public. The question is how you justify taking property from one person to give to another. I don’t hear an answer yet.

          • re: ““what JUSTIFIES the govt getting involved in forcing one property owner to give their property to another property owner for the other property owners own private benefit?”

            Well, the state laws, for one….

            The law is not justification for anything. …
            …..”

            the common response you’ll see when not dealing with folks who claim to be hard core libertarian is that commerce benefits everyone and that justifies taking from individuals so that everyone else benefits.

            or something along those lines….

            but what’s funny is when you ask – they refuse to answer at all!

            it’s like “see no evil”.

            ;-)

          • the common response you’ll see when not dealing with folks who claim to be hard core libertarian is that commerce benefits everyone and that justifies taking from individuals so that everyone else benefits.

            Breathing benefits everyone. That does not justify taking anything from anyone.

            or something along those lines….

            That is not a valid response. To justify something you need to be able to argue for it logically. You can’t do that for theft.

            but what’s funny is when you ask – they refuse to answer at all!

            But you are not answering either. Both the left and right fail on this front because both support theft and a bigger state. Their differences is not about government regulations or taxation but about what should be regulated and what should be taxed.

          • Vangel – to follow up – in a situation with no country and people living on land they claimed and being visited by other people as gangs who would take their property by force –

            do the property owners band together to rebut them?

            how do they do that ? do they take vote ? what if some do not want to participate?

            do they form a permanent group to monitor and maintain order or do they wait until each gang shows up and form an Ad Hoc defense of willing owners?

            2nd separate question:

            in a modern society do you support prisons for people who have harmed others or stolen from others?

            how would you pay for the construction and operation of the prison?

          • “what’s the moral reason for doing that?”

            What’s the moral reason for people like you sucking my wallet dry? I’m a property owner. Unlike redistributed income, at least I would get something in compensation if a pipeline crossed my property. I own a house in Texas now. If Keystone went under my yard, I’d take the free money no problem.

            “actually the reason I’m bringing it up only is tangentially related to Keystone.”

            Right. It’s directly related to defending your boyfriend.

            “The whole area of the govt taking personal property from one person and giving it to another – at the same time people are complaining about crony capitalism and the govt picking winners and losers sounds like we’re treating ED differently when it sounds not much different.”

            It can be different. Or it can be the same. Depends on the case. I guess context, like so many other issues, is not your forte.

            “so why do we allow it? I’m just looking for the usual answer given… what’s the reason why owners of gas and oil can take other people’s property to get their product to market? Is that a legitimate role for govt?”

            It should be up to the states to decide. If I move to Texas, a state with lenient ED for oil and gas, I know going in what I’m getting. I’d prefer there be no such thing as ED, but you simply can’t always build something like a pipeline without running into the problem. It doesn’t make the oil company is a villain, depending on how the oil co handles the issue.

            Again, it’s really just a cheap ploy for you to use.

          • re: “what’s the moral reason for doing that?”

            What’s the moral reason for people like you sucking my wallet dry? I’m a property owner. Unlike redistributed income, at least I would get something in compensation if a pipeline crossed my property. I own a house in Texas now. If Keystone went under my yard, I’d take the free money no problem.”

            you’re evading the issue guy. ED has been around a long time, long before I showed up. answer the question.

            ““actually the reason I’m bringing it up only is tangentially related to Keystone.”

            Right. It’s directly related to defending your boyfriend.”

            nope.. it’s related to the whole idea that gas and oil and other natural resources are essentially stranded if the govt does not get involved.

            re: “The whole area of the govt taking personal property from one person and giving it to another – at the same time people are complaining about crony capitalism and the govt picking winners and losers sounds like we’re treating ED differently when it sounds not much different.”

            It can be different. Or it can be the same. Depends on the case. I guess context, like so many other issues, is not your forte.”

            nope.. I’m dead on guy and you know it. You can’t have ED on one hand and complain about crony capitalism on the other.

            re: “so why do we allow it? I’m just looking for the usual answer given… what’s the reason why owners of gas and oil can take other people’s property to get their product to market? Is that a legitimate role for govt?”

            It should be up to the states to decide. If I move to Texas, a state with lenient ED for oil and gas, I know going in what I’m getting. I’d prefer there be no such thing as ED, but you simply can’t always build something like a pipeline without running into the problem. It doesn’t make the oil company is a villain, depending on how the oil co handles the issue.”

            whether the states do it or the Feds – what’s the justification for taking property form one guy and giving it to another for economic gain?

            “Again, it’s really just a cheap ploy for you to use.”

            nope. It’s an honest question guy.

            and you’re evading it…

            what justifies taking property from one guy and giving it to another for economic gain of the 2nd guy?

            how about an answer?

            is that a legitimate function of govt – and why?

          • What’s the moral reason for people like you sucking my wallet dry? I’m a property owner. Unlike redistributed income, at least I would get something in compensation if a pipeline crossed my property. I own a house in Texas now. If Keystone went under my yard, I’d take the free money no problem.

            You should be free to make a deal about how to use your own property. But you should have no say in how others do the same thing. If the pipeline companies can make deals with all of the property owners that they need to there is no problem and they should be free to proceed without asking anyone for permission. If they can’t they should not run to the government to force people to use their property in ways that they would not choose to. James Hill built a railway by negotiating with landowners by planning more than one route. The ones that objected or held out for too much money did not have the railway go through their land. The ones that did negotiate got compensated and everyone won. The only time the government really got involved was when the railway had to go through federally controlled land like reservations because there were no other options. That is the way it should be.

          • re: ” what I am asking is what justifies govt favoring one property owner over another in forcing him to turn over his land or the use of his land to another property owner.

            Why is it that you can see things clearly on an issue like eminent domain for pipelines but can’t see that you cannot justify the THEFT that you call taxation? It is the same thing my friend and by now you should understand that. If forcing people to give up their land to build a pipeline is wrong, and it is, so is forcing them to give up a part of their earnings to the government or anyone else”

            Because from a pragmatic point of view – which, by the way includes the Constitution – both ED and taxes are NOT considered theft by the founding fathers nor the majority of people who vote.

            and I basically support what the Constitution established:

            1. – the right of the govt to use ED
            2. – the right to tax
            3. – the right to vote

            what I object to is characterizing things like oil and gas development as totally independent capitalism with the govt getting involved when it should not.

            and this goes back to the fundamental purpose of ED – which is – in order to justify it – it has to benefit the greater public.

            it was never intended to benefit the economic benefit one landowner at the expense of another.

            that’s why there has been an ongoing debate on the difference between “public use” and “public purpose”.

            what’s the public purpose in granting private oil and gas businesses the right to take land from other property owners?

            who decides what is a valid public purpose? the owners of the pipeline?

          • Because from a pragmatic point of view – which, by the way includes the Constitution – both ED and taxes are NOT considered theft by the founding fathers nor the majority of people who vote.

            Income taxes were considered theft. There was no power given to Congress to tax income by the Founders. And you forget that the Constitution was a coup by the Federalists. No state legislature ever voted on it and no voter was asked to ratify it directly.

            But even if some men agreed that something was proper, which they didn’t, their beliefs do not bind me or you. You cannot justify something because some people agreed with it long before you were ever born. Would you justify slavery because some of your Founders were slave owners?

            and I basically support what the Constitution established:

            1. – the right of the govt to use ED
            2. – the right to tax
            3. – the right to vote

            It does not matter because you can’t bind anyone because you think that something is right. To justify something means that it has to be morally and logically supportable. Appeals to authority is neither moral nor logical.

            what I object to is characterizing things like oil and gas development as totally independent capitalism with the govt getting involved when it should not.

            Try to write clearly because it is not clear what you mean. Actually, given your thought process I do not believe that you are clear about what you mean.

            and this goes back to the fundamental purpose of ED – which is – in order to justify it – it has to benefit the greater public.

            Again you are confused. There is no ‘greater public’. The benefits are usually directly borne by some individuals while the costs pare borne by others. There is no monolithic “public”; that is a myth created by the parasites that want to rule your life by appealing to some greater good that they claim to be able to define.

            it was never intended to benefit the economic benefit one landowner at the expense of another.

            that’s why there has been an ongoing debate on the difference between “public use” and “public purpose”.</b.

            Like I said, there is always some individual or group that benefits and another individual or group that gets hurt. Justice demands that we only protect their rights, not intervene by limiting those rights.

            what’s the public purpose in granting private oil and gas businesses the right to take land from other property owners?

            Nobody should have the right to permit theft. End of story.

            who decides what is a valid public purpose? the owners of the pipeline?

            No. The only people who should control property are the owners of that property. Everyone else should have no say in the matter.

          • Because from a pragmatic point of view – which, by the way includes the Constitution – both ED and taxes are NOT considered theft by the founding fathers nor the majority of people who vote.

            Income taxes were considered theft. There was no power given to Congress to tax income by the Founders. And you forget that the Constitution was a coup by the Federalists. No state legislature ever voted on it and no voter was asked to ratify it directly.

            taxing was explicitly authorized. taxing of income was approved as an amendment.

            it was a coup, agreed. the whole idea of America as a country was a coup – agreed to by the people who inhabited the states and controlled their borders.
            that’s the way a lot of countries formed by staking out the borders of the country and then ruling/governing the land inside the borders.

            in all cases, other people who lived on that land became subjects to the new order – willing or otherwise.

            “But even if some men agreed that something was proper, which they didn’t, their beliefs do not bind me or you. You cannot justify something because some people agreed with it long before you were ever born. Would you justify slavery because some of your Founders were slave owners?”

            I get your point but the reality is that people know that as individuals they are vulnerable to others who would kill them and take their property so they affiliate with each other to preserve their property and lives.

            and I basically support what the Constitution established:

            “1. – the right of the govt to use ED
            2. – the right to tax
            3. – the right to vote

            It does not matter because you can’t bind anyone because you think that something is right. To justify something means that it has to be morally and logically supportable. Appeals to authority is neither moral nor logical.”

            maybe not but it is the way of the planet. The planet is divided up into countries as the preferred way for most humans to live.

            “what I object to is characterizing things like oil and gas development as totally independent capitalism with the govt getting involved when it should not.

            Try to write clearly because it is not clear what you mean. Actually, given your thought process I do not believe that you are clear about what you mean.”

            big jump here in concept.

            fast forward to a country that is governed and whose founding document – allows for the taking of land –

            ….. for what reason?

            …. it’s essentially the same reason why the borders are defended – to benefit those within the borders –

            without roads you have seriously limited commerce.

            roads benefit everyone but the land for them has to come at the expense of some.

            “Again you are confused. There is no ‘greater public’. The benefits are usually directly borne by some individuals while the costs pare borne by others. There is no monolithic “public” that is a myth created by the parasites that want to rule your life by appealing to some greater good that they claim to be able to define.”

            aren’t we dealing with semantics here? Do you think the
            roads built eons ago were built by property owners to benefit only those who built the road ?

            you’d have to pay a toll over each property you traveled over, right?

            we’re talking long ago – how would you conduct commerce without roads? how did roads get done? Would commerce really occur if each and every road was a toll road over private property and the owner would charge whatever he pleased whenever he pleased to whomever he pleased?

            “it was never intended to benefit the economic benefit one landowner at the expense of another.

            that’s why there has been an ongoing debate on the difference between “public use” and “public purpose”.</b.

            Like I said, there is always some individual or group that benefits and another individual or group that gets hurt. Justice demands that we only protect their rights, not intervene by limiting those rights."

            if the folks who govern the country agree to the concept of ED and have it embodied in their ruling document then what is the rationale for doing that?

            isn't it that roads that allow commerce benefit everyone?

            "what’s the public purpose in granting private oil and gas businesses the right to take land from other property owners?

            Nobody should have the right to permit theft. End of story."

            well…by your definition – if the people who agree to be a country and have rules to operate that country also agree to have a way to build roads – while others don't agree – you call that – theft. right?

            "who decides what is a valid public purpose? the owners of the pipeline?

            No. The only people who should control property are the owners of that property. Everyone else should have no say in the matter."

            if we were not going to have countries or not going to have countries that had roads except for separate toll roads for each property – and people were happy with that = then that's what we'd have now – right?

            or at least we'd have a world where some land was not a country and not ruled by anyone.. just ungoverned with no rules or authority and whoever took whatever they wanted – would be how things would work. there are some 3rd world places pretty much that way.

            people tend to group together if in doing so – it benefits them. outlaws do it …. roving hordes who would use the power of a larger group to prevail in taking what they want …. and to a certain extent – being the first guy on the scene to "claim" property is no more virtuous either. It's basically – "it's mine because I took it first".

            others can say – "just because you got here first does not make it yours" and then lay claim to it also.

            then what? this is how people decide that operating solely as individuals does not get you protection to defend what you say is yours and others say is not.

            at some point – you agree on rules about who owns what and under what conditions and who would defend your right to own property in return for you defending them.

            this seems to be a human nature… a pretty universal one at that almost by no means without others who reject the concept outright and would just take your property by force if you could not defend from it.

          • paul-

            “It certainly is the only entity that can keep out illiterate ditch diggers crossing over from Mexico by the millions.”

            it’s also the thing that makes turns those folks into a problem as opposed to making them an asset.

            surely you do not fear competition for your job from illiterate ditch diggers?

            they are an asset. they are a resource. you get cheaper landscapers, house cleaners, low skilled laborers in factories and on farms and all manner of other things that help you.

            they are only made into a problem by a welfare state that starts taking tax dollars to feed them and provide services. they cannot freeload off you absent government intervention.

            i think the argument you are making is coming from the wrong angle here.

            an abundance of cheap labor can be a huge asset.

            i find it funny that so many people see this when they look at china, but then ignore it when they look around the US.

            we just need to stop giving them welfare.

            you do that not by building walls, which are going to work about as well as the war on drugs, but by revamping the welfare system and creating a legal guest worker status that gets immigrants paying taxes but keeps them from using welfare services apart from those they pay for themselves with a form of guest worker fica.

            the one admittedly tricky bit there is that we need to end the policy of making their children us citizens if they are born here. that creates an entitlement nightmare. i fear that may take a constitutional amendment, but then, i also suspect that such an amendment could get the support it needs to pass. i’m actually surprised that no one is talking about that.

          • morganovich

            the one admittedly tricky bit there is that we need to end the policy of making their children us citizens if they are born here. that creates an entitlement nightmare. i fear that may take a constitutional amendment, but then, i also suspect that such an amendment could get the support it needs to pass. i’m actually surprised that no one is talking about that.

            I’m not advocating it, but strict enforcement of existing law would avoid most of this nightmare. Children born in the US are entitled to the same benefits as any other citizen. The non citizen parents aren’t, in fact the non citizen parents may be deported.

            So there’s a choice to be made. Take your US citizen child with you to your country of origin, or leave them in the US to receive all the benefits of the US foster care system to which they’re entitled.

          • Paul

            The reality is the pipelines need to be built.

            Says who? Unless you believe that consumers are somehow entitled to cheaper gas and oil prices, at the expense of other people’s property rights, I don’t understand the basis for that statement.

            If oil companies could build pipelines without crossing over into private property they would gladly do it to avoid the expense and bad publicity.

            I think it’s more likely that oil and gas companies prefer paying the lower prices for access to private property that government theft through ED provides for them.

            A pipeline built entirely through voluntary agreements with landowners would cost more, that’s the only difference. It’s not all or nothing.

            The idea that *we must do this* seems like dangerous thinking.

  4. China’s GDP is overstated. PPP doesn’t take into account quality differences. The (capitalist) U.S. collects more than three times more in taxes than (communist) China. Moreover, China exports much of its GDP (exports more than imports). Furthermore, China’s “growth-at-any-cost” policy ignores massive negative externalities, which make GDP growth expensive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>