America makes nothing except weapons -- UPDATED
Jon Taplin reproduces this jaw-dropping chart: Floyd Norris's scary graph of Durable Goods Production, adding, "We have so hollowed out our industrial plant that the only thing we are now producing is weapons of war." He goes on to quote Toynbee on Rome: "The economy of the Empire was basically a Raubwirtschaft or plunder economy based on looting existing resources rather than producing anything new. The Empire relied on booty from conquered territories... With the cessation of tribute from conquered territories, the full cost of their military machine had to be borne by the citizenry."
Update: The total numbers are better than the percentage changes: The US "remains primarily a civilian economy. Military now takes 8% of all durable goods, up from 3% in 2000."
the latest
latest episodes
but surely America is a font of culture unto the world via Hollywood?
A highly misleading chart, as it shows growth rate but the discussion centers around the overall economy. That doesn't reflect the actual composition of the GDP, just what has grown over that period of time. I suspect that military spending, while a significant chunk of the US economy, does not dwarf all other sectors combined as in the way some people are reading it.
There's also the knowledge economy.
Only poor countries manufacture stuff. (Which is perhaps why the USA is reconsidering it, after squandering its wealth on war and the bankers who make funding the wars possible.)
The only reason why the USA doesn't allow poorer nations to also manufacture military equipment is for security reasons (e.g. a hidden remote off-switch added by the Chinese manufacturer).
Do we need to start "making things" again? Not really, unless you want to compete with BRIC at their standard of living.
Do we need to get the military monkey off our back so we can actually be net-positive productive again in inventing stuff (i.e. science and technology)? Fuck yes!
The question isn't "How do we make enough?" but "What should we make?"
c.f. mass-customization
I think you are misreading this chart - it is a measure of production compared to 2000, not adjusted for inflation. In the NYtimes article the author states that the United States is still primarily a civilian economy, and that "the military now takes about 8 percent of all durable goods, up from 3 percent in 2000." Sure, that is a big increase, but we are in the middle of two wars and producing all that war stuff is bound to increase the percentage of military durable goods in the economy. 8% is a long way from making "nothing but weapons."
I found this graph, and it's Y-axis shenanigans quite misleading.
FYI, From the same New York Times piece:
«The United States remains primarily a civilian economy. The military now takes about 8 percent of all durable goods, up from 3 percent in 2000.»
I think you and Taplin are misreading this chart - it is a measure of durable goods production compared to 2000, not adjusted for inflation. In the NYtimes article the author states that the United States is still primarily a civilian economy, and that "the military now takes about 8 percent of all durable goods, up from 3 percent in 2000." Sure, that is a big increase, but we are in the middle of two wars and producing all that war stuff is bound to increase the percentage of military durable goods in the economy, especially when the time period also coincides with 2 recessions (2001 and 2008/9). Eight percent is a long way from making "nothing but weapons."
So, I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with the conclusion. We spend way too much money on weapons. But this particular graph may be misleadingly scary: It's plotting percentage changes in both categories from their 2000 levels.
The graph doesn't contain any information about the relative sizes of the military and nonmilitary categories. When you look at the graph, your subconscious says "OMG, our entire economy is built out of military airplanes!". But, in fact, if only 1% of our economy were airplanes, yet that 1% grew 15% last year while the other 99% of our economy shrank 20%, the graph would look... exactly like this.
What you need is a graph that's actually calibrated in dollars, and that shows both military and nonmilitary spending on the same scale. The graphs in Taplin's original post are more helpful, since they actually donate military spending in dollars (constant 2009 dollars, no less -- even better!) and compare our military spending to that of the rest of the world. Yet even Taplin's post doesn't really compare the size of our military goods production to that of nonmilitary goods. We need "military durable goods as a percentage of all durable goods", or "military spending as a fraction of GDP".
Ah, thanks to the other commenters for making my point -- using real numbers instead of my made-up example, too.
The story seems to be: 3 percent of our economy grew 15%, while the other 97 percent of our economy shrank 20%.
Yep, thats a chart of durable goods. That doesn't take into consideration entertainment, software, books (including textbooks), farming, etc.
America dominates in software and entertainment but yes, we farmed out all durable goods manufacturing to other countries who do not have good environmental or worker protection laws: China, Korea, etc.
Oops, wait, I typed that too hastily and now I can't edit it. Sigh.
Replace my last sentence with "3 percent of our economy grew 125% over the last decade, while the other 97 percent shrank 20%."
Ah, yes, bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. Great reasoning there.
Let's go back to how the government was before 9/11. Zero wars. No "Homeland Security". No warrantless wiretaps. Budget surpluses rather than deficits. Liquids ok on airplanes.
Double oops -- as Xeno points out, I meant to say "our durable goods economy".
At this rate we'll have an accurate statement of the problem no later than comment #125...
Wow, I sincerely hope that first commenter's comment was made sarcastically (sometimes it can be hard to tell online when you don't know the person). So many countries would give anything to keep American films off their screens, or at least in greatly reduced numbers. Hollywood films are probably #2 in line behind weapons exports.
America makes no durable goods except weapons - except for the ~94% of durable goods that aren't weapons!
Norris's graph is pretty misleading when presented together with that title. The same graph with the Y axis in dollars would show the amounts of military vs non-military spending; still depressing but more informative.
you can find the numbers at the US Census Bureau:
http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/m3/
Zuzu - I wasn't arguing whether increased production in military durable goods is a good or bad thing. The point is, when thousands of military vehicles and weapons need replacing, you will see a big upsurge in production compared to previous years. And when the overall economy is in a recession and people are buying less things, non-military durable goods production decreases.
I have no idea whose "reasoning" you are attacking here, but it certainly isn't mine. Making a sound argument is one thing, making an argument based on a shady presentation of numbers is another.
Dear America:
Who do you think is more popular in the village; the policeman or the doctor? Who ultimately is more likely to be kept around?
NEWSFLASH: You can't eat services. Information won't keep you warm. Entertainment won't fuel your car.
An information economy can't sustain itself if it isn't built on an economy of goods. I had hoped that the dot-bomb would have taught that to even the densest economist.
and whoever brings the medicine to save the child may have anything in the house their heart desires. Gratefully.
@Takuan -- Given what we seem to be about to do to doctors, I wouldn't argue too strongly about how popular they are. At least Obama had a beer for the cop, the docs are about to get the shaft.
The graph alone is deceptive, leading one to think that all we produce is weaponry. It's label, however, says "percentage change from 2000 average. So, our military spending has slightly more than doubled since it began growing in 2001. Notably, it remained flat until after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers. And, as another commenter pointed out, we still are primarily a consumer economy, only spending 8% of our GDP on the military.
And until the recession began in late 2008, nonmilitary spending had seen a three year stint of steady increases.
The doctor is definitely necessary when someone is ill, but if someone breaks into your house, you'll call the policeman. If you're lucky, you don't need either one frequently.
(let's torture this one all the way) and if the cop is on the take?
The title of the post should probably get corrected. A rise of military production from 3% to 8% of durable goods is a real and important issue that is worth discussing, but this fact is undermined by the false title.
Like many knowledge workers, I cannot get enough of this sort of thing: yes, we are but shadows of the horny-handed sons of toil of yore, who built the gas-guzzlers of the '70s with hard-headed pride.
It's sort of like having sportswriters tell me what a trembling heap of wimp-flavored Jell-O I am compared to Quarterback O'Signingbonus, who doesn't let defenses or respect for women keep him from getting what he wants, when he wants it.
NEWSFLASH PANTOGRAPH!!
That list does not include food of which the US exports tons to third world countries every year and subsidizes those exports. That's a list of MANUFACTURED DURABLE GOODS.
Like VCRs, camcorders, plastic tumblers, etc. I don't quite see how I'm supposed to eat a VCR or put on in my car so what the heck are you talking about?
According to Economics and Statistics Administration nondefense durable goods orders in June outdid defense side durable goods by almost six to one (51.3B nondefense sector, vs 8.6B defense sector). The graphic is extremely and intentionally misleading, and the headline doubly so. Shame on BoingBoing for either buying this crap without checking on it, or intentionally helping to mislead people with it.
The most inteteresting element of this chart is the difference between military jets being ordered and commercial jets.
http://www.slate.com/id/2155445/ I think the guns-to-caviar index is quite apropos a lens through which to interpret this data.
And while it's neither here nor there, I dislike most of you.
I know it's easy to misread these charts; I make that kind of mistake all the time, but allow me to suggest an alternative headline:
"America's only manufacturing growth is in weapons."
Much more reflective of what that chart actually shows, and, alas, nearly as depressing.
NEWSFLASH: We can trade with poor countries for those things. Thus, we both benefit.
e.g. We create the designs, they manufacture them. Until they're rich enough to afford the R&D, down the line, until we run out of poor countries and everything is made by robots.
(Also, the dot-bomb was due only to artificially low interest rates causing excessive and unsustainable venture capital investment. The economics of the New Economy are still sound.)
Farming is for even poorer countries than manufacturing ones. The subsidies and Farm Policy in the USA is actually making its citizens sick with artificially cheap corn, wheat, and soy. End the subsidies and end the trade barriers. Let Mexico grow corn for the USA, while the USA invents new GPS tracking systems for real-time efficient fertilization and irrigation patterns.
I wasn't attributing the USA military budget policies to you; sorry if my comment was confusing on that point.
May I direct those inclined to downplay those figures to the third chart in the article which shows that the U.S. has been responsible for a figure hovering between 40% and 45% consistently in global military spending between 1988 and 2007.
To protect American intrests ....abroad.
Wasn't Obama supposed to take our guns away by now?
Hi Cory,
That's a fascinating graph, on its own merits, and so thanks for posting it. I've got to say, though, that coupling it directly with a quote from another source -- "We have so hollowed out our industrial plant that the only thing we are now producing is weapons of war" -- is misleading to the point of dissemblance.
It leads people to believe the graph is illustrating the quote; that, literally, we make nothing in America but weapons now. See the graph? Weapons through the roof, everything else gone.
But the graph, of course, doesn't actually measure output. It measures percentage change.
A worthy and scrutable fact on its own, as I said, but not the one being portrayed in this context.
the title of this post, and the implication as to the meaning of that graph, as mentioned by those commenting upstream, is misleading..
Why hasn't this been corrected yet? Hellllloooo...anyone awake ??????
@zuzu There's plenty of non-poor, even rich, countries that manufacture stuff. Apart from the fact that the US still builds stuff that doesn't go boom, there's for example Germany, which still exports - measured in money - more than any country, with China as a close second.
All you people with your math and your statistical knowledge are getting in the way of a Correct Worldview. Please step away from the chart.
Such a lovely example of the (mal)practices described in:
"How to Lie with Statistics"
by Darrell Huff and Irving Geis
(Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249162319&sr=8-1 )
An innumerate Professor of Communications - Facts don't matter as long as the presentation is shiny and polished.
See, this is why I like blog comments. Or Wikipedia.
Despite the fear of the internet inflating incorrect or manipulative information, it hardly ever stays up very long. The military percentage going up from 3% to 8% is a striking, yet hardly surprising observation. The US is at war. Sure military production goes through the roof. This is, at best, a small puzzle piece among many symptoms. And I say that so calmly as a convinced pacifist...
But really, this North Korea style graph is misleading and a bit embarrassing for the kind of journalistic quality the New York Times represents. Especially, if you want to be better than this piece of sensationalist propaganda: http://www.palmettoscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/maze.jpg
... both are, btw, a nice example of graphics design warefare.
http://simplecomplexity.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/weapons_big.jpg
If our imports aren't exceeding our exports, how come we have approximately 700,000 abandoned shipping containers stacked up in heaps around our containerized shipping ports?
because China is receiving the raw materials to fill those containers in bulk freighters and tankers.
Agreeing w/ everybody who's disappointed in the misleading title of this post. There's a HUGE difference between "America makes nothing except weapons," and "Weapons are the only growth item in American manufacturing since 2000."
My guess (no data to back this up) is that part of the reason that our weapons shipments have taken off even more in the past 2-3 years is that we have some excess "inventory" from our recent adventures, and are now selling that to our friends in the neighborhood.
I have heard elsewhere, as well, that our own durable goods shipments are way down in the current economy because of excess inventory both here and in other countries.
I, too, think the US should make many fewer weapons and more fun things. But this post headline is just wrong.
Suprise, suprise, the economy is in the sh*tter and the only people buying anything are the folks that print their own money! I never would have seen that coming...
But honestly, how many of our weapons are so expensive that a single instance eclipses many, many smaller manufacturers entire output for the year?
F22 Raptors are $200 Million each
Predator Drones can be over $8 Million each
M1A2 Abrahms tanks are $4.3 Million each
Tomahawk missles are about $1.5 Million each
Sidewinder missles are about $100,000 each
With unit costs like those, it adds up quickly.
The idea of the U.S. dominating "THE INFORMATION ECONOMY" is racist bullshit & its biting us in the ass. Its based on the assumption that whites are intrinsically destined to lead the world.
At Harvard, MIT, & Cornell a high percentage of the students are from Asia or India.
When our economy was good and we were more welcoming to immigration many of them opted to stay here, but these days the best and brightest are returning to to their home countries. They don't need our bloated corpse anymore.
Nehpetse,
No offense, but there are so many flaws in your argument that it's self-defeating.
Just dial back the loathing a tad. It's Saturday.
Let's grant the first obvious point: we're well on our way to outsourcing everything that can be outsourced.
Now for the second obvious point: Weapons are an increasing percentage of our total durable manufactured goods because they can't be outsourced to other countries. We can't tell who we might end up at war with. We also can't afford to have essential war materiel piling up in some country where we can't get at it -- or, worse, being produced in a place where our opponents can get at it. Therefore, we keep those industries inside the United States, and export their products.
Cog, if there are so many flaws in Nehpetse's argument, why don't you tell us what a few of them are?
Please, why are people talking as if the chart referenced concerned industrial production? It says, "Durable Goods, Shipments and Orders." It doesn't show units made, it shows how many got ordered and shipped.
The US military is ordering enormous amounts of goods because war is the most wasteful process known to humankind. The demand is astronomical because everything gets used up at a mind-frying rate.
Might it not be the case that non-military goods are not being ordered (hence shipped) in near so great a quantity because consumers don't have any money to spend, thanks to the recession, and demand has dropped? Which it has.
Of course a great deal of money (not to mention human lives, suffering, and goodwill) could be saved if all US troops were brought the hell home where they belong tomorrow. And indeed the chart suggests that. It even suggests a drop in industrial production, since wouldn't it be idiotic to turn out millions of widgets nobody can afford to buy? What it says literally nothing about is industrial capacity.
Also, before people make statements about how "we" have "hollowed out our industrial plant," might they find it useful to do a little research about actual fabrication? Unless they're talking about by-rote assembly line jobs, which have largely been taken over by robots since the 1970s (and which few boingboing readers would want to do), it's just not true.
Nehpetse - really? To say that one country dominates something called "The Information Economy" is not racist, as America is a melting pot that while it may tend toward a certain hue, it is not monochromatic, to refer to America is to refer to all the hues and shades that make up our populus.
You, my friend are the one who brought race into it, and I agree with Cog - it's a Saturday, dial back the loathing, OK?
BTW, Xeno said entertainment and software, that is fairly specific, and while bollywood is out there, as well as the Chinese film industry, America does dominate those industries (for now).
Teresa Nielsen Hayden - Extra containers are always colecting around our ports - I don't know that there is an excess/surplus - have a citation? (I live in NJ, and Newark seaport is one of the most active ports, and usually you can't help but see all the containers stored around the port, but I have no way of knowing their contents...)
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14133794
http://www.joc-digital.com/joc/20090209/?pg=8
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aurr22fhQ5gs&refer=japan
http://www.vinpac.com/news/news-2Mar09.htm
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?col=§ion=business&xfile=data/business/2009/July/business_July937.xml
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/reuters/2009/07/20/2009-07-20T152835Z_01_LK449700_RTRIDST_0_SHIPPING-CONTAINERS-TRADE-ANALYSIS.html
A famous bumper sticker says, "question authority" so let's follow its advice. Assume the statement "America makes nothing except weapons" is true.
If America makes nothing but weapons then shouldn't nearly everyone we know be employed making weapons? How many people can you name who at this moment are employed making weapons?
If America makes nothing but weapons then shouldn't you, the reader, be employed right now making weapons? How many jobs have you had in the past making weapons?
If America makes nothing but weapons then were are the factories? Can you name the factories in your city that are building weapons?
If America makes nothing but weapons then most of the economy must come from the federal government. But doesn't the federal government get it's money from taxes? How can the government get taxes when most of the population of the United States is working for the government? If it's from the sales of weapons then shouldn't our ports be filled with tanks, planes, ammunition, bombs, rifles, hand grenades, trucks, Hummers, land mines, helicopters and other supplies being shipped to other countries?
Shouldn't we be seeing these things being transported to our ports on trucks and trains?
If America makes nothing but weapons then where are the labor unions? Shouldn't a weapon making labor union be bigger than say the auto workers or the teamsters?
When I asked myself all those questions I found the answers were in the negative, so my conclusion is someone has made a mistake somewhere.
http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_12949248
What's going on with the over-the-top headlines and silly exaggeration on Boing Boing these days? "America makes NOTHING except weapons"? As has been mentioned many times in these comments, the information being presented is grossly misrepresented.
The post should have been titled something to the effect of "Military spending in US rising quickly"
What's up with the exaggeration, Cory?
So far, it seems like Obama economy is all about infrastructure. They've given the green light to every heavy duty truck operator hauling asphalt, digging the pipes, TYING UP THE TRAFFIC. I think it stinks.
Stimulating the economy should be about making places more pedestrian/consumer friendly, and not about putting detours up everywhere, junking up the traffic and putting everyone (well, me anyway) in a foul mood.
Cities need to double down on getting some good knowledge workers in there to fix the cities and make them better for people to live and work. City designers and park program coordinators and homeless shelter operators, hmmm... let's see, children's theaters, youth employment specialists... See, there *are* better ways to spend millions of dollars than doing all this construction. Why does the money have to flow toward the heavy machinery manufacturers?? Let it support arts, environmental ed programs. Then those workers go and spend their little salaries in their cities on the cool sustainable businesses their friends run. Don't you see...???
It may also be worth noting a common misconception among people is that the US has a hollowed out manufacturing sector, left with only service or information jobs. While it's been reduced comparatively, the US still has the largest manufacturing capacity in the world, with China and Japan fighting for second place year after year. However, the capacity of the US is still nearly double that of the next nearest country. There are many sources of UN and US Dept of Labor data around the internet that verify this, like:
http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2008/09/23/top-manufacturing-countries-in-2007/
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-top-manufacturing-countries.htm
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/deffirm.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/euMergersNews/idUSL999731120090609
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=adxxJpl6uN7g
http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/2009/07/31/US-arms-exports-down-by-1-billion-in-2008-report/UPI-90821249053518/
Takuan - if you were a teacher, you'd be my least favorite one, based solely on the number of reading assignments you give out! ;^)
A few comments:
1) China, Japan, Russia, Europe and a host of other countries financed your last few decades. (Mostly because you had the more explosive arguments.) Be grateful!
Oh, you spent our money on cheap gas, SUVs and your 3rd I-pod in 2 years? You didn't use our money to investment in infrastructure, health care, superior education, levees in the midwest and New Orleans or anything recognizable as industry? Tough luck.
2) The 6% of the military sector is one thing. The 14% of the financial sector surely don't produce durable goods either. And the (not quite that) durable goods of the housing sector are for quite an extent superfluous, because they were built for speculation, not for use.
3) When you are talking about growth, it doesn't matter where you start from. If military spending grows 5% faster than the rest of the industry, it will have twice the share of the total within 14 years. In fact, it took 8 years to double. Leave this unchecked and you end up with an economy that is indistinguishable from the Soviet madness of trying to keep up with the Joneses in the US.
4) To give you an idea of how big the military budget of the US is, you could launch one of those:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ariane_5_(mock-up).jpg
Every hour on the hour all year long and *still* have more money left of the military budget than any other nation spends on its military. Btw. each one can carry about 20 tons into a low orbit. That's 200.000 tons or roughly 444 million lbs. Did you ever wonder what an oil tanker looks like in space? You could put one up there every year.
Can you imagine if the R&D and money and brains went to figuring out and implementing better energy solutions instead of building bombs? Let's liquidate the defense industries. Owning stock it in is just WRONG. Lay off everybody at the defense contracting corporations and all those well educated engineers will have to start their own companies that address real needs instead of this manufactured need for war.
That chart is ridiculous--misleading and downright irresponsible journalism.
1. In 2000, the economy was rocking. Right now, we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression. We invaded Iraq in 2002 and are still there. We just recently decided to invade Afghanistan. This graph should come as no surprise. More importantly, it should not cause any reason for any serious concerns. Give me a graph of the last 100 years, and I guarantee you it would not look abnormal at all (other than how severe our current recession is).
2. As evidenced by the 2.2% downward revision of 2008 Q3 GDP, the recession clearly ramped up around July of last year. Starting in July/August of last year, companies reacted to the weakening economy by drastically cutting production in order to reduce inventory levels, and it has stayed that way. Point is: production through Q2 2009 is at an all-time low.
3. Eventually production will rebound, and when it does, this graph will be irrelevant. If you do not believe there will ever be a recovery, then we have a lot more to worry about.
4. The most important consideration RIGHT NOW is not complaining about how expensive invading Irag was. What matters now is the economy going forward. Given the record stimulus already spent by our federal government, eventually we will have to pay for this reflation--most likely through increased taxes. This will not be an easy task. If Obama gets his cap and trade energy bill, his $1 trillion health care plan and his plan to increase taxes passed, then we may have more on our plate than we can handle.
What matters is jobs. Unemployment keeps getting worse. Right now, we need to focus on creating jobs, so the issue that needs to be discussed is whether Obama's proposals will create jobs.
Cory, over the past few months, it has become apparent that your knowledge of economics is inversely porportional to your knowledge and passion for writing and internet freedoms.
We love ya, but stick to what you know. It ain't economics.
some undeniable observed facts: many Americans are poor. America makes and sells lots of guns, at home and abroad. The economy sucks everywhere. The same things have been done for decades. Resources are shrinking. The environment is getting worse.
Any professional economists deny this?
OK, here's the big jump: Maybe it is time to do something differently.
You need a diploma to know that?
Takuan said:
Here in the US, our poor are, by and large, better off than most other poor folks around the world. What we call poor is not elsewhere on this big blue marble.
As for your line of reasoning, I'll take a crack at it, though I don't think my conclusion will differ from yours, the path may vary:
Many Americans are poor - I'll dispute the many, but I'll agree that Americans have litte of real substance to show for all their work
America makes and sells lots of guns - OK, but we aren't alone, there are estimated to be over 75 Million AK-47s and their variants, all made outside the US of A
The economy sucks everywhere - OK, that includes US, but it doesn't make US standout on the world stage, so I'm not sure what this proves.
The same things have been done for decades - Your point being??? Again, this generalization applies to the planet, not just our little corner here in the US of A.
Resources are shrinking - the non-renewable ones are (i.e. we're out of dinosaurs to make Oil out of)
The environment is getting worse - guns make air pollution? You haven't proven anything, you've listed a bunch of debateable points with no real connection so far...
Maybe it is time to do something differently - what, beat our swords into plowshares?
You could have just said, "Things suck, I want change" and been done with it - you haven't even given the reader an area for change - weapons? poverty? economy? resource conservation? protect the environemnt? Your logical blunderbuss is little more than unfocused Sturm und Drang...
I'll take some Change-ty change-change, but I'd like to have a voice in the choice of the direction, rather than trusting the folks that got us in to this pickle - deal?
(Come on, I have to at least get partial credit for working blunderbuss and "Sturm und Drang" into my response, don't I ;^)
Uh, whatever you say #70!
Anyway, yes, the chart is seriously misleading...SHAME on whoever made it.
For all the chart says, the entire military could have shipped 1 pencil in 2000 and worked their way up to shipping 2.25 pencils in '09 while the nonmilitary sector shipped 2 billion tons of oil in 2000 then reduced output to 1.5 billion in '09.
Yeah, I know this has been said...but I don't think it can be repeated enough in the comments. That said -- indeed we need to reduce military spending.
"trusting the folks that got us in to this pickle -"
no fear, you may have elected them before but they are gone now.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.From that moment, on the majority always vote for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury,with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy,always followed by a dictatorship .The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200yrs".
Alexander Tyler 1775?Now Takuan,your moment has arrived!tread softly munchkin.
@Clay:
It would have been inaccurate to claim even "America's only manufacturing growth is in weapons."
More correctly, the graph tells us only: "weapons manufacture has grown quite consistently; the nonmilitary manufacturing sector fluctuates."
My point being, there's nothing to say that, for example, teledildonics is not also a persistent growth area, growing even faster and more consistently than militaria.
Capitalism requires expanding markets 'ad infinitum'. The result is steadily decreasing resources in order to feed the profits of the corporatists who care not one whit about this planet's resources and ecology.
In order to sell more tanks, bombs, and other weapons, it makes sense for weapons manufacturers to support ALL wars. As more tanks, bombs, etc. are destroyed or used up, an expanding market is guaranteed.
@ #73 - wizardofplum
One of the things the quote you posted neglects to mention is "Who are these voters looting the treasury?" It ain't the poor is it? It is and has been for a long time the rich who have been voting themselves raises. This is why the quote from Toynbee is so appropriate.
The rich are parasites.
They produce nothing of value, never have and only cannibalize whatever society they are in. What is shocking I guess is their ability to enlist the working class in their own demise.
So yes, rich and powerful voters do game the system. They purchase congressmen to write the laws in their favor. They buy the media to convince people that it is right and proper that they should own 99% of the economy and they fund the astroturffed political orgs that send out teabagging morons who believe giving the rich even more of their money is in their personal interest. And when people finally do figure it out they revolt and that's when the rich pull off their masks and hire a dictator to keep the masses in line.
Well from what I can see the position of Sec Def is already, as of right now, "above party" in the USA...changing the Administration has not changed the top dog at the pentagon, eh? SecDef for life? Or are no Dems capable of passing the "security clearance"?
'Total information awareness', together with deep integration of defense and civilian databases as to crime and "terrorism"? What's the American Gov's job again?...So perhaps a new kind of dictatorship is already here: y'all just no longer notice, and maybe have a military/police/prison guard pension not to louse up by opening yer mouths if you do feel uneasy about all the death your governmnt's exported/exports, as your own quality of life keeps dropping....
Wizardofplum: So do you suggest we give up all hope and go straight to dictatorship/hell?
But democracy may be a "problem", while military spending (= a gigantic murderous fraud on regular people, ie not gov-trained killers and badasses: the soldiers always get paid, eh?) is no problem for you, eh?
Geez, it's enough to make one think, that if there were no problems (capable of violent 'solution') to keep the need for big guns going, some Americans would invent some, somewhere, to keep the gravy train, their "style of life", going...
How's about this one, a paraphrase from a victor of WW II: every dollar spent on guns is a dollar taken from spending on butter.
So, Plum, how's about let's TRY reducing military spending, before teaching us that democracy never works, that it never has and it never will...by appealing to the authority of some out-of-context and incomplete misquote...how can you be an American at all, Plum? With that view on democracy...I understand why you need guns...
I see that the US is gearing up for a war against yet another country crippled and "softened up" by decades of American-led sanctions...and they're even less of a threat to anybody than the Iraqis were, although the "Mass media" appears to feel threatened enough, to be treating the war as inevitable....
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aMiQmByND.2A
Geez, did they not spend enough over the past fifty years not to need to "rush" weapons into production now? Or are these beong "rushed" because the "threat" is not one directed at America, and thus not one planned and prepared for.
Ah well, must protect one's allies, because...
Noen - i'v never gotten a job fom a poor person.
Your ad homonym attacks on "the rich" lead me to believe you've never actually known anyone that was rich, serious, eight figure rich. The rich I have met aren't as you portray them, unless you limit yourself to Wall Street. To those folks, money is simply how they keep score (in my personal experience).
Making a payroll is non-trivial, and the owners I have know take that responsibility quite seriously, frequently fogoing their own compensation whe times are tough, to keep everyone on the payroll until things turn around.
Are all the rich as I've descibed, of course not, but your statements eliminated the possibility that "the rich" were anything but evil.
Sorry, that should have said "ad hominem" - I have no idea where my iPhone autocorrect came up with that spelling...
@Takuan - re: doing something different. I'm completely on board with that. I suggest we start by inventing a few more political parties. That 300 million of us share TWO parties between which we whiplash back and forth is ridiculous. Our course never altered, nor will it now.
Re: the decline of American manufacture, North Carolina's furniture industry (and furniture manufacture in the country as a whole) has evaporated. Those jobs won't come back UNLESS we do something different. Obama is all in a twist about the auto industry, but no one cares about us non-Union Southerners.
But let's get back to the police versus the doctors argument. I'd like to keep both. Can that be arranged, or do I really have to choose one?
regarding the rich, they are different than you and I: they have money. In other words, look around you. Now imagine those very, exactly the same people with great personal power and think about how they would behave.
Hey...the weapon's business has been a particularly nice racket for the US as, if we feel demand dropping off, we can just start a new war to get the demand back up.
I still maintain this is the real source of the "tough talking" politics in the US: You'll find that the states that receive the most military-industrial spend are the ones that have voted "hawk" (ie, Repug) in the last bunch of elections.
T
@TAKUAN: Damn, don't you know about tinyurl.com?
As to doing something different: yes, three or more parties with a serious chance at gaining power will definitely make for better lives for all. And NOW is the time for that to happen. Obama has almost a full term to go, and unlike his predecessor, he will not have murdered any new, significant challengers. The extreme lunatic fringe that has driven American politics through a corrupted voting process and engineered apathy is on the ropes. They can become a minor fringe party and sit at home impotently fondling their "true copies" of Obama's birth certificate inbetween fits of untreated TB coughing.
There a chance for several new parties to emerge. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see a Spanish speaking party for that matter. People form their groups by perceived community of interest and after that can make whatever coalition politics they think will advance those interests. Political parties by region are possible too, especially in a developed economy going through hard times where say making cars for a living trumps all the other identifiers.
Up til now, induced paranoia about the Other has been used quite successfully in getting Americans to stay under one spurious two party tent. That works less and less as time goes by without an invasion and preemptive strikes get harder and harder to justify. (ever think about Viet Nam? As many as four million of them killed compared with 50,000 Americans - yet where are the Vietnamese suicide revenge bombers?)
How about an American Life Party? Their focus is jobs, healthcare, education, culture and real equal chances for all. You know, what you originally said you were going to do? A military machine pared back to a level of only being able to destroy all human life on Earth ten times over instead of fifty? A nation that exerts back-breaking political pressure overseas by threatening to withhold the billions of dollars of medical supplies dropped by bombers ever year?
Time to think your personal narratives really are their own stories. With yourselves as the authors.
@Takuan et al, re change. We are programmed to fear and distrust change, especially when things are at least "OK" for us.
If unemployment is around 10%, that's very bad, yes. Bad for the economy, bad for individuals, bad for social programs, bad bad bad. But it still means that 90% of the folks have jobs. I've been out of work in my life, and you know what kind of change I wanted? You guessed it! I wanted to get back to work asap. I didn't want to alter the system, invent new forms of gubbermint, impose sweeping financial reforms... I wanted an f'ing job. That was the change I wanted: umemployed -> employed.
Big change tends to happen slowly in places where most people have at least 3 hots and a cot. In the US, we've got that plus the Web, cable TV, air conditioning and some really nice national parks. The fact that big change happens slowly is generally, I think, very good.
Why? Because big change, when it comes quickly, often brings problems we can't even anticipate. If you asked the 90% of the folks with jobs or the 50% of the people with healthcare, "Hey! Want big change?" the answer is generally going to be, "No... unless you can guarantee that the change won't suck for me."
That's why, in general, the two parties in the US are so similar, and why things move back and forth. If your choice is between a Granny Smith apple and a Golden Delicious, well... OK. You're not going to mind changing things up every now and then just to see what the other apple tastes like. If you choice was between a Granny Smith and a handful of cottage cheese... well, that's VERY different. You don't want that choice. If there's a third choice, frankly, you'd probably want a Macintosh or, in an extreme case, maybe another kind of round fruit. Perhaps a peach.
Wild change is not ever going to be popular with the majority of people in a country that's not totally in the shitter from their personal POV.
@#78 Timothy Hutton
"Noen - i'v never gotten a job fom a poor person."
And yet America's manufacturing base, outside of military contracts, is crumbling if not on the verge of collapse. Outside of jobs that include "Yes Master" people can't find any job at any price. Why is that?
It's because decisions were made, consciously and deliberately, to move America away from an industrial nation towards an aristocratic nation where all that exists is the military, the ultra rich and those who serve them. You see there are people who really do want an imperium, a "unitary" presidency, whose court, congress and the senate, does as it is told. That was the vision we had for the last 40 years. From Nixon's own Royal Guard on down to the Court of the Boy Emperor's Royal whore James D. Guckert. They wanted a real aristocracy with a real emperor, a real court and real peasants. And they've almost gotten that. They may yet still.
so what is "poor": here's how rich peolpe explain poor:
http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1713.cfm
and then:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/24/757263/-The-Minimum-WageAnd-Why-The-Recovery-Is-Not-Coming
lots out there, but the preponderance doesn't support the idea that American poor are somehow "not really poor".
http://www.povertyinamerica.psu.edu/
how others see you is often more reliable than own impressions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/19/usa.paulharris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_poor
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_axes_pentagon_plan_to_build
the procreationist flat-birthers are arming up.
Timothy Hutton @48:
Citations? No problem. Note that the last few links only mention the problem in passing.Shipping Containers Recycled as Homes
Shipping container architecture
Urban Options: Group 41 Offers Free Custom Container Architecture
The journey from box to house
Architects'design earns acclaim
SG Blocks
Container Architecture
North America Ports Report Record Traffic
Housing the Next Generation with Old Shipping Containers
University of Colorado at Boulder
Shipping containers the building blocks for new Noho co-operative
As Takuan has pointed out, shipping containers are no longer accumulating at U.S. ports at the rate they previously were, because the U.S. is so broke that imports are way down. However, the citations of the problem all date from the period we've been discussing.
You're in NJ, near Newark? I haven't been to the Port Elizabeth IKEA since the new one opened up in Red Hook, but for years, the standard way to get there from the NJ Twp took you right past a cyclopean stash of excess shipping containers -- huge solid blocks of them, all empty.
Getting back to jobs creation for a minute... what are the new industries capable of employing displaced workers, providing a real livable wage, and improving the quality of life for all? I'm pretty sure it isn't building bombs. (Or roads- seriously, when they come to your city and shut down the traffic, you'll see.)
#75 Noen.Your question"Who are the voters looting the treasury?Precisely the ones you have cited.At that time the aristocracy,landed gentry,merchant class and the ecclesiastical fraternity vied for power and the preservation of the status quo.The proles' vote could be bought for a gill of gin or a pint of ale[see Hogarth]Today?Whoop-de-doo! Joe Public's vote 'counts' but what has changed who has The Power?Republican chicanery and the Electoral College[read elite] secured the Presidency because almost 50% of "enlightened" voters,cast their ballot without the expectation of collusion,Chad's rule!The Proles were Punked.
Did you note the date?Does 1776 ring a bell?has America come full circle?What will it take to get the principles of the Founding Fathers back on track?The wraiths of Joe McCarthy and Jolly Jesse Helms are stirring.Their mentors J.P.Morgan
Vanderbilt,Astor et al,set the scene,exercising their democratic right.Rich Uncle Pennybags is not to blame he's Uncle Sam's sidekick.
The whole point of my post was to establish
that emancipation has been side-swiped,and this was fortold almost 250yrs ago.Let's not attribute blame but seek a solution.My string on this mortal coil is reaching ground zero.For me?"At my back I always hear/Time's winged chariot hurrying near/And yonder all before us lie/Deserts of vast eternity."For you? the answer lies in the old Yankee "can do" attitude,it's broke Bud,fix it!
Timothy - I think Teresa's explanation is the right one, but in fact I can't really come up with another one. If shipping containers are accumulating at the Port of Newark, what do you think the issue is? Assuming for a moment that they are NOT empty, do you think there's a transportation bottleneck there that keeps the goods in them from being distributed?
And if they ARE empty (and it seems clear that they are), what explanation besides a serious trade imbalance (at minimum one at the Port of Newark) can you come up with? I can't think of one, except rather fanciful ideas like "we keep their shipping containers and send out our goods in new, American-made ones." Can you think of any plausible alternative explanation?
I'm not being sarcastic. I'm really wondering what your thinking is on that.
"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything -- 14% of people know that."
-- Homer J. Simpson
wizardofplum -- The spacebar is your friend.
U.S.-China trade imbalance not sustainable
=============
The trade imbalance between the United States and China is not sustainable, and the two countries have a joint responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said on Wednesday.
China should shift from export-led growth, increase its exchange rate flexibility, and open its markets more, Locke said in remarks prepared for a speech to the American Chamber of Commerce.
Locke, who will visit Beijing and Shanghai, plans to promote clean energy technology as one area in which U.S. industry can find opportunities in China.
"For all our areas of agreement, the United States and China's trade relationship has to evolve. There are concerns and deep structural issues that must be addressed," Locke said.
"Chief among them is a bilateral trade imbalance that simply can't be sustained. Growth predicated on ever increasing Chinese exports being consumed by debt-laden Americans provided years of prosperity -- but it also sowed some of the seeds for our current economic problems."
The United States is China's second-largest trade partner after the European Union, and accounts for 18 percent of China's total exports and imports.
"There do exist some issues in our bilateral trade relations, including cooperation on high-tech products," Chinese commerce ministry spokesman Yao Jian told a press conference on Wednesday.
China's big surplus in its trade with the United States has become a global concern, he said.
"Of course, it's a separate issue as how to interpret the trade surplus. In a globalised world today, trade surplus does not necessarily mean trade benefits," Yao said, pointing out that China mainly exports labor-intensive products.
"China is trying to promote trade balance. We have special working groups that are in talks with the U.S. side on promoting trade balance and cooperation on high-tech products."
=================
#77 UGLY CANUCK-Give up?hell NO!that was Alexander
angst,a warning,not a solution[by the way I do not teach or preach on the efficacy of Dumocracy]I
offered a provocative viewpoint that was extant almost 250yrs ago,in the expectation that it would prompt some constructive solutions.You have made your point and it is appropriate.Now how do the great unwashed gain some measure of control over their heritage?Reduce military spending,Wow that's an original idea.Tell me,how do we influence the hearts and minds of the electorate and their masters, so that such a creative idea can become policy?Hmmm,Is that what Alex hinted at
vested interests bilk the common good?Incidentally
Boing Boing is international in scope,to assume the nationality of a poster is speculation.
Check the posting by # 84 HUNGRY JOE there is a beginning.Minority government and coalitions can work, special interest lobbyists will have to work their butts off,trying to be effective in influence peddling.
Check TAKUAN @#84.I threw down the gauntlet in my post at #73 and his view [not in response to my challenge]has merit.He offers ethnic solidarity.Moi,I prefer a larger community to whit"The Distaff Alliance for Democracy" Yeah man,See? a huge constituency.Can you see the slogan,"Vote for DAD's,DAD,s do it better".That will secure the male vote for those that can read but not reason.The myopic and moribund male will assume that Dad is Us,when in fact it's THEM.Now that makes Chad cheating mere bagatelle!Peace be with you and yours and may the wind be always at your back.
Wow! What a great graph! So it shows that despite a growing non-industrial economy in services the US has managed to maintain a steady level of non-military durable goods (minus that the dip for the recession) while at the same time expanding its military durable goods? Awesome! Go USA!
The only thing I see when I look at that chart is a chart showing that despite the fact that the rest of the US economy is growing, durable goods have remained steady with the exception of defense goods, which have gone up.
Um... sounds like good news to me.
http://drama.eserver.org/plays/classical/aristophanes/lysistrata.txt
There is plenty of room for more and better commerce that isn't overpriced real estate, natural resource extraction, or stock market fiddling...
Come on now people, what is it, think!
OK, what does everyone NEED? Not want, NEED.
#101 Ta!muchly mate.I've been indenting,to create paragraphs but the text still lines up on the left
can't shake the Remington Rand syndrome.So will try your suggestion.
So is Mr Locke your solution?Any approach to Far Eastern entente,should include India.
The Forever War
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/08/is-america-building-a-purely-military-economy/
@99:
Xopher, you are perfectly right.
But in fact it should be stated more harshly. The reason why shipping containers pile up in Newark is the same why shipping containers pile up in Lagos or other African port cities.
There are many goods that are coming to those places exclusively from the outside. In other words: Japan, China, South-East Asia and Europe cloth the world, supply them with machines, kitchen appliances, computers and just about anything else. A large part of that goes directly to the USA. (Or why do you think people keep on waffling about a decoupling of the world from the US economy?)
But this is not trade.
The USA has been piling up debt from all countries but especially China denominated in its own currency. No other nation could have done this, but the US.
Why?
Full spectrum dominance.
This euphemism, that comes from the same quarter that brought you the unipolar moment, both were formed right after that cold war and meant nothing but world domination. Or: You do what we tell you 'cause we got the guns and you don't.
The US, though, has lost the "unipolar moment". And hence the source of its money and there goes the economy.
It takes the investment of decades to build up industry and business relations for export, the foundation of trade.
It's going to be a tough ride. Trust me on that one.
Have you heard of a little place called India?
Have you heard of a little place called India?
Obviously a reference to entertainment not involving identical twins who are separated at birth, with one raised by a poor but virtuous family and the other by a rich but evil family. Musical hilarity ensues.
Actually, the answer to "Why?" is because the USD is a reserve currency.
c.f. dollar hegemony
Antinous, you've got something against old Commedia dell'arte plots?
How about entertainment involving twins who are separated at birth, with one raised by a virtuous scientist and the other by an evil orphanage. Muscular hilarity ensues.
I never considered that as a Bollywood rip-off. Live and learn.
When I was in India, every time that we'd watch a movie, we'd say, "Didn't we already see this one?" "No, no. That one had twin taxi drivers. This one has twin bus drivers."
#3 - what happens when China stops sending us stuff? What if they suddenly got pissed at us, and decided we needed to be taught a lesson? What then? Would we be able to start a manufacturing plant making, say, DVD players on US soil?
Some of us are smart enough to get engineering decrees of one type or another, and can do the design work to be sent off to China for the manufacturing part, but what about those of us who are not smart enough to get engineering degrees? What do the rest of us do? Work at Wal-Mart? Join the Army?
There was a time when one could make a reasonable living making things like toasters or electric drills. Maybe your grandparents got to work at GE and made washing machines, air conditioners, or television sets. Now you can hardly find any of those things that are still made in the USA. So what is left? Are you comfortable living in a nation where you are either a technocrat with an engineering degree or a blue-smocked drone at some retail outlet, with nothing in-between? I'm not.
farm?
Per shipping containers - not saying there isn't a trade imbalance but piles of containers is not the best indicator. There are other factors involved. The people who sent goods to us in those containters do not want the containers back (cost of shipping back v buying/producing new) and in many cases we do not re-use those containers (variety of reasons for this - regulations, unsuitable, etc). Piles of empty containers is not a new thing - paying attention to them, particularly with regard to the trade imablance, is. I'd guess that perhaps it is worry over trade imbalance that has made us more prone to notice the containers along with their build up to a critical mass that cannot go as unnoticed easily any longer
That time is long gone, even in the BRIC nations. It's now so easy and so cheap to make things that only the desperately poor can afford do it. Conversely, exponentially more people can now afford toasters and drills than could in the so-called "good old days".
Why not?
You're not entitled to a "good job". You have to provide what other people are demanding, or you perish.
STOP BREEDING! would be a good start.
If you're not a "technocrat", you probably shouldn't have kids. Even if you are a "technocrat", you probably should only have one, maybe two, kids, because educating them to be the next generation of technocrats will be monumentally resource intensive.
It is "easy and cheap to make things" because the workers of the world are not paid living wages.
If you're willing to accept global capitalism's definition of what people are "entitled" to, you are utterly morally bankrupt.
Back to what this discussion is supposedly about, Norris' graph: These percentage changes are no surprise, given that the US started its imperialistic invasions in 2001.