Excerpt:
> "The computer industry, in turn, is an outlier and statistical anomaly. Its extraordinary output and productivity growth reflect the way statistical agencies account for improvements in selected products produced in this industry, particularly computers and semiconductors. Rapid productivity growth in this industry—and by extension the above-average productivity growth in the manufacturing sector—has little to do with automation of the production process. Nor is extraordinary real output and productivity growth an indicator of the competitiveness of domestic manufacturing in the computer industry; rather, the locus of production of the industry’s core products has shifted to Asia"
The whole document is well worth a read.
Here's another article: https://qz.com/1269172/the-epic-mistake-about-manufacturing-...
Also, hedonic adjustments are typically applied to CPI figures, not figures like GDP or value added, so I suspect you have some facts crossed.
When comparing to a past year's GDP, you need to make an adjustment for the differing value of money, and you can't calculate the differing value of money without considering the changes in the qualities of what you can buy with it.
But this is exactly what Econ 101 tells you to expect to happen (and I teach Econ 101 ;) . Countries specialize to maximize comparative advantage. If you are the US and can manufacture high value items at a lower opportunity cost (or high value services at a lower opportunity cost), you will, but this means giving up on doing other things you could use the resources for.
The net result is that US manufacturing output in real dollars has increased 4x, in the past 70 years. At the same time, its share of the economy has shrunk (because other sectors have outgrown it), and many lower value manufacturing subsectors have been largely abandoned.
Here's a video [1] which explains why, in 1955, manufacturing household goods was cheaper to make in the US than in China (and why, at the time, they thought this manufacturing dominance was the thing that backed the US position as a global superpower). It's not because Americans worked more cheaply than Chinese workers, it's because American factories had a well-developed tool-and-die expertise, which meant that when anyone in the world wanted to make something, they were well-advised to travel the US to get it made.
Econ 101's comparative advantage is true at an instantaneous point in time, which is a good start, but if perhaps it's just "knowing enough to be dangerous". Economic policymakers (and company leaders) would do well to think about comparative advantage as planning an optimal trajectory over time, which can mean sacrificing a short-term optimum in exchange for a long-term optimum, and if there even is a textbook solution for that, it's going to look less like a 101-level intersection of straight lines, and more like an iterative optimization over nonlinear differential equations.
And, sure, there are absolutely network effects with related goods and industries that have steepened that movement. If it was a win to change the allocation of resources when e.g. steelmaking was strong in the US, it's even more of a win after steelmaking withered.
> and if there even is a textbook solution for that,
It's not quite what you're saying, but the closest work I have read is 'Dynamic Optimization: The calculus of variations and optimal control in economics and management' by Kamien et al. It is all about estimating gradients and plotting trajectories in dynamical economic systems.
Manufacturing is the core example of path-dependent advantages, because (unlike what any econ 101 textbook teaches), marginal costs decline with increasing production quantity in the manufacturing sector. This means the more you make, the better you are at making more things!
The United States was able to build a tremendous economy by building up those systems while continuing to benefit from its older manufacturing base for decades.
The United States economy is far from perfect, but it hasn’t traded away a long-term asset for only short-term ones as you’re suggesting.
I think there's little doubt that our change in allocation of resources has been advantageous versus staying an economy focused on primary metals and relatively simple manufacturing. Do you really feel otherwise?
Of course, economic assessments and the behavior of markets generally assumes free choice by participants. So there's always:
1. Geopolitical risks: state leverage can turn a local absolute advantage in e.g. producing war materiel into other advantages.
2. Sure, we could back ourselves into a corner, ultimately, by not being able to provide a key part of the value chain by following that gradient. (Geopolitics can be related, too, in that states can gather together lots of small advantages and use them in coordinated ways against other states).
So our state, of course, needs to focus on countering those actions of other parties. And maintaining some diversity beyond what is economically optimal can add resilience.
(One point I make in class: our textbook pretty much says that price controls are always dumb... but that there are plenty of reasons that a country might desire to have a surplus of food or to not be dependent upon another country).
The track record of those who would seek to centrally plan and optimize for some future outcome instead of following that profit gradient has been very poor. Not to say that it's never worked: but generally following the profit gradient has yielded better outcomes.
> because of (unlike what any econ 101 textbook teaches), marginal costs decline with production quantity in the manufacturing sector.
Unlike what any econ 101 teaches? Talking about LRATC, returns to scale, etc, is a big part of my unit 3. If you're not referring to that and instead e.g. Wright's law, that too is mentioned.
The behavior of markets assumes free choices by participants that rewards the participants who make those choices. I do not dispute that the CEOs who were responsible for shipping supply chains to China were following their incentives, and it worked out well for them. I would argue that there are alterations to regulations on corporate governance which would increase long-term profitability of those corporations overall, but that the key people in the corporations aren't properly incentivized to pass them, nor are shareholders sufficiently informed or coordinated.
> Talking about LRATC, returns to scale, etc, is a big part of my unit 3
In your unit 3, do you draw LRATC curve as a parabola? Because that's the wrong shape for manufactured goods. Not only do average costs decrease, so do marginal costs, and this is monotonic over all but the shortest timescales. Wright's law is about half of the reason, yes.
A whole lot of the decline that we're talking about has been in those sectors. Microchips and aerospace grew; simple consumer goods and steel manufacturing fell threw the floor.
> The behavior of markets assumes free choices by participants t...
Incentives can be, and often are misaligned. However, the context of our discussion is talking about large overall economic growth that has outpaced manufacturing growth, even though it is still positive. This isn't evidence of misaligned incentives.
> In your unit 3, do you draw LRATC curve as a parabola? Because that's the wrong shape for manufactured goods.
It's absolutely a bathtub.
It's steep-downward sloping, mostly flat for a loooooonnnggg time, and then upward sloping. Indeed, this understanding of the shape of LRATC comes from study of manufactured goods. At some point coordination gets hard and further increases in quantity require using resources that are not well suited for the task.
Of course, the quantity at which costs slope upwards may be at an impractically large quantity for any industry-- in which case that industry is likely to be a natural monopoly.
I endeavour to convince you that you are teaching your students a falsehood. Natural resource industries have bathtub-shaped average costs. Average costs fall strictly monotonically for manufacturing, and marginal costs either fall or remain constant. Constant marginal costs are what you get if you don't even bother to solve coordination problems, and just copy-and-paste your whole assembly line instead (except even then you can't help but gain economies of scale, if only from your tooling suppliers). The misconception that it's a bathtub does not come from the study of manufactured goods, it comes from thought experiments about manufactured goods done by people who never managed quote requests at a real factory. Empirical studies done on actual firms almost never show rising marginal costs at any quantity.
That this error has permeated introductory economics is a very, very big problem.
You still have coordination problems on the supply and distribution side.
> Average costs fall strictly monotonically for manufacturing
This is an extraordinary claim that is easy to refute with simple thought experiments. e.g. You think that if I want 103% of the units that a set of equipment from ASML can deliver, that average costs will be lower than producing 100%? Or do you mean "strictly monotonically" in some other sense?
Being able to vary your capital in the long run doesn't mean that you can have 10.3 sets of photolithography apparatus.
> and just copy-and-paste your whole assembly line instead
If you copy and paste and have everything truly independent, without the need for any coordination of resources, what you effectively have is multiple firms. In practice, firms still need to allocate scarce resources among lines.
> The misconception that it's a bathtub does not come from the study of manufactured goods , it comes from thought experiments about manufactured goods
This is a falsehood. Bain conducted reams of real-world research on manufacturing, plant size, firm size, and returns to scale, and this informs today's idea of LRAC. Of course, this research is 70 years old, and recent data is more ambiguous. As I've said, some believe that information technology has changed everything.
Apparently this was known as the “American School” of economics — and it dominated from the mid-late 1800s for over a century.
Not true. If your factory can make N widgets per year, and you want to make N+1 widgets, the marginal cost of the N+1th widget is vastly greater than the Nth widget.
For most goods, the factory doesn't run anywhere near N, and the fixed costs are 6 or more orders of magnitude higher than the marginal widget costs, so your business is well served just by finding any method to use that plant more effectivly. As an example, I was quoted $60,000 for a mold which would have produced parts at $0.005. (Very small plastic widgets.) At that ratio, any amount of scale will increase my profit, since the marginal costs, even if they increase by a factor of 10 or 100, are negligible to the cost of the tooling. (And the global market for this widget is measured in hundreds of units.) Any amount of reusing the mold is going to save me money. Sure we have problems if we need N+1 widgets in less than 1/N more time, but if we expected to need 2N widgets, we could reuse the tooling design at a second factory, and marginal costs actually do keep dropping.
There is never any guarantee that profits are long term or short term, or that your manufacturing specialization is going to remain useful, instead of being a dead end. Retaining specialization on, say, cathod tubes wasn't exactly profitable. See all the camera manufacturers that zigged when they should have zagged, and used their manufacturing strength to unprofitability. All of this is hidden by talking about 'manufacturing' in very large terms, but the real world doesn't work like that. Specifically, semiconductors were a very nice place to keep expertise in, and paid off. Internal combustion engines, and filaments for incandescent lighbulbs probably not.
Even in cases where we are looking at the same kind of manufacturing in multiple places, competitive advantages are lost. There are parts of Europe taht still have metallurgy and never attempted to divest, but lost comparative advantages because better technology came in at the wrong time in the capital depreciation curve: They invested heavily at the slightly wrong time, still had expensive labor, so they became far less competitive, at least for a while. Did they not pray enough to the manufacturing god? Did the Netherlands get lucky, or was sufficient dedication to manufacturing that led them to have ASML in their borders? Is the fact that Novo Nordisk found the most important pharmaceutical in the world a matter of Danish superior industrial policy, or did they just get lucky compared to the many other places with large investments in pharma that didn't get anywhere near that lucky?
The path dependence is not so predictable, and the path that makes you better today can lead you down a cliff. It's all gambles, and whoever claims they can predict what is the right one in the long run is being overconfident
A lot of the GLP-1 success is based on progress made in the diabetes space (incidentally so), the refinement of molecules and better understanding of how obesity could be treated.
Van den Brink gave a great interview some time ago, I'll see if I can translate it and post it here.
Looking at how Apple said it would be impossible to get US chips, so much this. It needed a lot of investment to onshore chip production again. And we should onshore more high value manufacturing to keep the supply chain working in one place.
The EU has been better at keeping manufacturing competence, but I see a lot of these short term comparative advantage econ 101 ideas taking over in the EU as well.
Like I said in my previous comment, though, this doesn't mean the capability to build has left the US (or Europe). Just that the decision to continue investing in manufacturing things that aren't competitively profitable has been made and the capacity has been allocated to higher margin manufacturing (regulated industries, complex products, and products where customers are less price sensitive).
It's not just geopolitics. China required partnering with local companies and sharing IP. Even if they were geopolitically friendly, Western countries set up to build their own Chinese competition from scratch in exchange for lower labour costs, believing that either they could out-innovate China at design (even when Americans no longer understand how their own products get made), or that they'd be retired by the time it did matter.
Also because you couldn't offshore production to China or most other places even if you could provide all that due to various geopolitical, economic, social, institutional and other reasons.
The company I previously worked for not only outsourced product manufacturing to South Korea with assembly in the USA, after I left. They also outsourced customer service (CSR) to south Asia. Texas VCs bought the company and are trying to maximize all returns on their investment.
Companies like American, that produce branded products, have a whole department that helps their sales reps with moving customer support, be it email, physical letter, and or phone, to south Asia to reduce office management costs in the USA. They also could just be outsourcing invoicing while CSR is a local provider.
Manufacturing is a simple concept that is heavily politically pushed. The other departments that are needed to support products seem to be ignored. ML has a great likelihood of perpetuating this with real-time vocal transitioning. The CSR in India can sound like some person from New Jersey and break the accent barrier. This would put the customer at ease when sharing the same vocal tones. Consumers would be none the wiser.
I'm not saying that in a judgmental or harshly negative way -- I've personally worked in cost centers for most of my career, and although I think highly of myself and my peers, we're still just assessed bluntly as part of COGS.
If C-level could be outsourced while keeping shareholder returns, it would be
At least with J, if they outsourced the full part of one of the project, we would have it done faster and better XD
All of that manufacturing growth is semiconductors, and most of that measured semiconductors growth is simply Moore's law. I don't think anybody would say that the US is worse at making transistors today than it was in 1970, but that's table stakes; everybody is better at making transistors than they were in 1970. Automotive manufacturing has also done well (in part thanks to trade barriers). When it comes to everything else -- vacuum cleaners, fans, washing machines -- that manufacturing output is not doing so well.
Aka giving up the security and being more vulnerable to volatility. The pendulum can swing too far, as resilience cannot be measured in dollars.
Just because they're "lower value" subsectors doesn't mean they have significant real-world impacts.
This sort of announcement will inevitably be used shortsightedly for political reasons. Someone will interpret "We have 3nm at home" as "We can do something foolhardy with Taiwan" or "We can throw up a big, non-surgical tariff". This will soon be followed by "did anyone mention that the 3nm chip is useless without a galaxy of half-cent supporting parts that we outsourced decades ago?" or "people consume products other than highly binned silicon dies, and now we have supply crunches and price spikes from televisions to toasters to turmeric?"
Given that we have the largest navy in the world, it would behooves us to grow our shipbuilding capabilities to be at least competitive.
??? Scandinavia is full of it. But I suppose in the 1600's it was the Netherlands that cut down all the forests, they were the shipbuilding superpower at the time.
>The Swedish Navy planted oak trees on the island beginning in 1831 to provide strategically important timber for future ship construction. Once the timber was ready to harvest it was no longer required for ship construction.
As ship production ramped up, there were growing concerns about resource depletion. To the point that by the late 16th century, Spain was forced to start importing timber from its colonies to keep up with demand.
Where did you get this information? The Spanish-American war wasn't considered much of a war by Americans at the time since the American fleet had been built with steel vs the Spanish that still used wooden ships. Those ships were run on coal. The US lost its shipbuilding industry because of cheaper competition from Japan and S. Korea in the civilian sector and Congress favors aircraft carriers over smaller ships like frigates and destroyers from what I read.
Times are changing.
Basically measuring this is difficult, but this is contrary to my only knowledge of this which was a Wendover video (that was an enjoyable watch), but I wouldn't hold in the highest standard.
China has the most ships.
Most of those ships are tiny.
By tonnage, the US comes _way_ out on top.
I guess we can give the US some bonus points here for each SM-6 they have, but pretty sure those'll run out in a week too.
On the "plus" side, China is food-insecure, so the US can cause millions of civilian deaths via famine. So it can/would still win, just via genocide. It would take a decade though, and require a strong campaign by the media to maintain domestic support.
Actually, no, I'm overstating things. The strategy would not be so much to kill so many people, as to "make the economy scream" (as in South and Central America), so as to hopefully bring about regime change. The net result might actually be an increase in immigration from China to the US (to the extent that people are able to make that migration). In the long run that'd be a net win for the US, actually.
Indeed, you could say that the first shots of that campaign have already happened. Look at Chinese youth unemployment.
https://totalmilitaryinsight.com/aircraft-carrier-defense-sy...
China and the US have been at war for decades now. Both an economic war and cyber war. Chinese nation-state hackers have hacked into tons of Fortune 500, Aerospace and defense companies, and tech companies to steal R&D from them. They take this R&D and use it for themselves but additionally, they also give it to private industry to use for themselves as well. China plays the long con game. Whatever it takes to make China the number one super power country eventually.
Or you can thank it for there being any shipbuilding left at all.
I would like to hear the case for how repealing the Jones Act would strengthen the US shipbuilding industry. I imagine it would be quite amusing.
> [The Jones Act] requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on ships that have been constructed in the United States and that fly the U.S. flag, are owned by U.S. citizens, and are crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents.
Repeal all provisions save for the requirement of to be constructed in the US.
It's not what I would suggest (an outright repeal would be better), but it's easy to see how this partial repeal would strengthen the US shipbuilding industry: you are making their products more useful and cheaper to operate and more useful for potential owners.
music
movies
microcode
high-speed pizza delivery”
-― Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash, 1992
I have immigrated from my homeland (first to Canada and then Malta) and I usually say "I had the bad luck to be born in Hungary but I fixed that when I could". In other words, I am not particularly fond of the country / people living in there. But it being my mother tongue, growing up there has an interesting effect: some Hungarian songs have a much stronger emotional effect than any in say English. These are not even songs I knew as a child. I am actually quite curious whether there has been scientific research in this.
"If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart."
The idea here is pretty straightforward: speaking to someone in a language they merely understand reaches them intellectually, but speaking in their mother tongue resonates on a deeper, emotional level. You can imagine now why songs in Hungarian resonate more to you than the ones in English.
There was a guy called Jackie Orszaczky who was a Hungarian jazz/funk musician - bass player, bandleader, and singer - here (in Sydney, Australia) who made some of my most loved jazz/funk music.
This is one of his bands: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hydb0dyB9GQ
Sadly, he died about 15 years back, way too early. Fuck Cancer.
Apparently he was "a big deal" in Hungary, at least amongst music circles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Orszaczky
Why?
The problem here is working people ARE the economy. If they no longer have the power of consumption everything crumples. Of course it's a sliding scale, but even just a bit less consumerism can be catastrophic for some industries.
You can make gains by new technology(printing press vs handwritten), cutting quality(cheaper inputs/materials) or improving efficiency(work cell design).
Looking at it from a view of consumerism paints a bleak picture, if you look at if from a view of social stability without a functioning economy everyone will starve since the fertilizer, DEF fluid, John Deere tractor code and everything that ties all those together are so far spread out that is has become like a spider web facing a hurricane.
By dollar value, perhaps, but that mostly means the US makes lot of high-value microchips, a field that has made (well-documented) exponential progress over the past decades. It is still consistent with US manufacturing capabilities regressing in other key aspects, such as machine tools, injection molding, shipbuilding, consumer goods, and so on.