"America doesn't like they way you do civilization. We don't like the way you brought 650 million people out of extreme poverty in a generation. If you have to use authoritarian tactics to do that, it's better that they stay poor and addicted to opium. You have to disband now."
"Oh, okay. Sorry America. We recognize the error of our ways. We will stop being China now."
Samsung for example is making the majority of their phones in Vietnam now.
US imports from Vietnam have gone from nothing to $50+ billion per year in 20 years. A 100 fold increase. It's equivalent to 1/4 of their entire economy and it's almost entirely a deficit. We're going to build large regional competitors to China for strategic purposes. Conveniently, they can also buy up US debt with all of those dollars we're pouring into their economy.
Some of this is because China's manufacturing costs have climbed so much, some of it is intentional strategic emphasis (as the TPP was / is meant to be). The US very clearly has shifted its political interest in Vietnam for example.
Even the belief that the rich/powerful mist have some sort of virtue is only one perspective that conveniently allows the US the moral high ground.
No country, no person, no thing is perfect. All evil comes from things that pretend to be and act as if they were. The humans that pretend to or want to be gods inevitably are the one who dehumanize others and so become demons.
But when you argue about a topic that affects the security of the US, there really is no such thing as "moral high ground".
Edited to add:
I believe China holds that true as well when discussing the security of China, considering the number of spies that are in the US.
So all your concerns boil down to us-vs-them tribalism?
I'm not arbitrarily in favor of everything the US does, but on the margin, I am in favor of policies that optimize this country's success.
When there is both political and economical will, the country will be able to mass-produce again. Right now there is no economic incentive to do so.
Also, it would probably be harder to bootstrap 2020s-era manufacturing infrastructure than it would be to bootstrap 1940s-era infrastructure.
They weren't idle (look into what clothes washing alone used to take), but the war effort certainly shifted priorities and also increased the number of women without domestic responsibilities.
I wonder if that's still possible. The US was an industrial country at the time; they had to convert existing factories to other forms of production (e.g., from cars to bombers). Now, manufacturing is much less prevalent; the US would have to create capacity from scratch.
Also, manufacturing is much less productive than other economic activities - that's why it's done in poorer countries that don't have better options while the US does higher value things (ignoring for this purpose the very important issues of the distribution of those higher returns). I wonder what the blow to the economy would be if the US suddenly had to switch large amounts of resources to manufacturing.
Finally, given that manufacturing is no longer the cutting edge of business, I wonder if it might be easier to build capacity than we think. As an example, t-shirts are mostly made outside the US; I would guess that if there was suddenly a critical need for them, the US could ramp up capacity quickly.
There's the flying geese paradigm (FGP) that theorizes the rapid industrialization of Asia. It theorizes the movement of manufacturing form country to country as well as a process of industrial upgrading.
For example, manufacturing began in London, moved to the US, and eventually someone built a factory in Japan. In all these circumstances in order to stay competitive - they had to move to a country with cheaper labor or manufacture a more advanced product with a bigger profit margin. However their competitors catch up and they need to do the same thing again. Find a better more complex product to manufacture or find a way to manufacture it cheaper overseas.
The US started to lose its manufacturing jobs and thus its middle class starting from the 1950s. Most of these jobs were replaced by the service industry for half the pay. Today the service industry employs the most poor Americans today, your cashiers and waiters, and they are soon to be eliminated.
I've been researching manufacturing because I want to make some toothbrushes. In China, I could make them for less than 25 cents. I'm not sure how much it would cost in the USA, and a lot of my colleagues tell me that most manufacturers won't even call them back because they're so small. China on the other hand doesn't care - they're happy to sell you 1000 toothbrushes for 25 cents each.
I don't know what's better. To manufacture in the USA and not be able to compete on price - one of the biggest factors in a purchase or manufacture them in China and be competitive... Well I guess the answer is simple, if you want to make a business, you need to be profitable. If it's not profitable in the US, then China might be your only answer.
Post-war, America didn't spend a single cent on rebuilding infrastructure lost to bombing, while the other major powers needed a decade of austerity just to get back to where they started. Britain was still repaying the Anglo-American war loan in 2006.
America did an excellent job of scaling up manufacturing capacity during WWII, but the factors that made it such a dominant force were largely accidents of geography.
America didn't spend a single cent on rebuilding infrastructure lost to bombing
America spent a lot in helping rebuild infrastructure elsewhere.
America has had 150 years of peace and stability. The Soviet Union was ravaged by a traumatizing war at home and before that a major civil war and revolution.
http://fortune.com/2016/03/31/united-states-manufacturing-ch...
Bunnie talks about it on his blog here: https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297
Here's one where he tears down a flicker flame lamp.
Isn't there large issues in USA colleges with students from China cheating left and right?
It's much easier to copy.
is very reproducible, by USA or anyone. They for decades had 10% GDP growth: BY REDUCING TAXES. Not something popular in California - due to Cali math(CA tax payer does not understand that lower taxes = higher tax revenue )
Have you done your homework on your tax claim? Because it isn't actually guaranteed that lower tax rates will lead to higher tax revenue, it depends on the specifics of the tax regime and proposed cut.
Small or big: cutting taxes provides growth. Including more tax revenue.