schlimm It is about having a government and corporations that stand up for Americans
Of course there is no such thing as a totally level playing field, but people and governments ought to be about the business of the most good for everyone, not gaming the system so that one party wins a lot but the sum of the system is less.
We've seen this first hand with 20th century railroading.
I was really just paraphaseing a quote I can't seem to cite.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Back a ways greyhounds suggested that transportation was really cheap - next to nothing - because of containers. This from today's NY Times:
"Companies that lack contracts with shippers are paying even more. The cost of shipping a 40-foot container from Hong Kong to Los Angeles without a contract, or the spot rate, was about $871 in July 2009, a five-year low. This month, that spot rate reached $2,624, a five-year high, according to the industry consultant Drewry Shipping Consultants, as reported by The Journal of Commerce. That exceeded even the cost before the recession, which was about $2,000"
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
RRKen They have to buy less because they're spending their income on high cost ethanol from Iowa instead of lower cost ethanol from Brazil. This puts carpenters, facroty workers in Milwaukee, and waitresses, among untold others, out of work. a.) It appears to be ok for Iowans to loose jobs in your view, but bad for Milwaukee?
They have to buy less because they're spending their income on high cost ethanol from Iowa instead of lower cost ethanol from Brazil. This puts carpenters, facroty workers in Milwaukee, and waitresses, among untold others, out of work.
a.) It appears to be ok for Iowans to loose jobs in your view, but bad for Milwaukee?
I don’t see how it can be unfair to Iowans if we let Milwaukeeans keep their money rather than taking it from them and giving it to Iowans.
b.) Under the current scheme, blenders will not get the credit from Brazil ethanol. And note current prices from each source. $2.81 including transport from Brazil; $1.60 including transport from Iowa. Transport costs are 15¢ per gal from Brazil and 10¢ per gallon from Iowa.
oltmanndEconomic upheaval caused by globalization stinks. Protectionism stinks worse. Chose your smell.
You present a totally false set of choices. Having the proverbial "level playing field" is about not playing the sucker b/c of a failure to adapt a good economic theory (free trade) to changing circumstances. It is about value judgments. To bring it down to the level of slogans as you do, it is about valuing decent jobs more than cheap clothes at your Wal Mart. It is about having a government and corporations that stand up for Americans (as Germany and BASF and Siemens recently did with China for Germans).
"You may not want to accept this, but it is reality.
Finally, if all somebody has to do to get a job is move, I'm not that concerned. It is imposible to totally remove pain from the economy. Moving may be a pain, but it ain't gonna' klll you."
You choose to present your zealot's version of reality and to disregard the cascading economic effect of the jobs losses of Iowa workers as though that has a minor effect compared to NJ residents spending slightly more on fuel.
Your ho-hum, lack of concern for the unemployed not only betrays your lack of compassion for people, it shows your utter lack of knowledge of reality. In your free market world, people can be moved around easily, much like shipping widgets in containers, to find jobs. Laid off in Chicago, move to Atlanta!! Not so easy in reality. You might not have noticed that in 98 out of 100 major metro areas, manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2000. So exactly where is the job for the to-be-laid-off ethanol worker in Iowa? Let that 50 year old change careers and retrain! Facile answers to real problems
Greyhounds: Although your example of what happens re; ethanol made in Iowa and someone paying more for gas in NJ is true, it confirms my conclusion. You see money and jobs as equivalents, which totally disregards the other monetized and non-monetized aspects of jobs. You prefer to appease China at the expense of American workers' jobs without really knowing anything about China. While China has not engaged in any wars since Korea, other than border skirmishes with Viet Nam and the old Soviet Union, compared to our almost continuous state of war, the risk of armed conflict with that nation seems unlikely.
schlimm Railroads are not manufacturing jobs. Many of the auto jobs were lost before 2000. Sure, productivity has an influence on employment, but many of these jobs were in industrial sectors that no longer exist in the US. So not all the jobs lost went overseas, but a large number did. And China has not let the Yuan float in the currency markets. Not so far. Just talk. No other nation is permitted to do that, regardless of holdings of Treasuries. The Yuan has been grossly undervalued for years. We should impose an across the board tariff to compensate until they do.
Railroads are not manufacturing jobs. Many of the auto jobs were lost before 2000. Sure, productivity has an influence on employment, but many of these jobs were in industrial sectors that no longer exist in the US. So not all the jobs lost went overseas, but a large number did. And China has not let the Yuan float in the currency markets. Not so far. Just talk. No other nation is permitted to do that, regardless of holdings of Treasuries. The Yuan has been grossly undervalued for years. We should impose an across the board tariff to compensate until they do.
They're really hurting their own future by keeping their Yuan at low value. They can't maintain an artificially low value forever and when the inevitable happens they are going to be in a world of hurt. All that dollar denominated debt they hold is going to be woth a whole lot less to them. And that's gonna' cause 'em great problems. Maybe great enough to cause a very bad war.
The Chinese government is afraid to let the Yuan float to its market level because they, the government, fear loss of exports. They'd then have an aggrevated unemployment problem, civil unrest, and loss of control. And if there's one thing a totalitarian Communist governent fears, it's loss of control.
In the meantime, there's no reason for us to degrade our own people's living standard by making the things people buy here more expensive. Your proposed tariff would do just that. It would hurt the US consumers. It would also create unemployment in China and back their government into a corner. That's another thing your proposed tariff would do.
Back 'em into a corner and they're just liable to try to come out shooting. The Chinese government is basically a totalitarian elite rulling class. They'll fight before they give that up. And the Chinese people won't have much to say about it.
schlimm Interesting discussion. When all is said and done, we have lost a large percentage of our manufacturing jobs and shipped them (not in a container) overseas. In May 2010, the number of manufacturing jobs in top 100 US markets had fallen to 6,641,900. That is a loss of 3,472,500 manufacturing jobs, a 34.33% decline. Studies have shown that there are 8 - 10 supporting jobs for each manufacturing job. This makes a total job loss of at least 31.5 million jobs just for these 100 areas. http://buffalo.bizjournals.com/buffalo/blog/the_score/2010/07/manufacturing_jobs_keep_slipping_away.html?appSession=668698737661067&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=2&cpipage=1&CPIsortType=desc&CPIorderby=Percent_change_20002010 Much of this is a value judgment, not just hard facts. To people like greyhounds, $, products and jobs are all equal. Tell that to a worker in an industry where the bulk of the jobs have been outsourced overseas in only a few years. Tell him/her to move across country and find another job and abandon their home which they cannot sell.
Interesting discussion. When all is said and done, we have lost a large percentage of our manufacturing jobs and shipped them (not in a container) overseas.
In May 2010, the number of manufacturing jobs in top 100 US markets had fallen to 6,641,900.
That is a loss of 3,472,500 manufacturing jobs, a 34.33% decline.
Studies have shown that there are 8 - 10 supporting jobs for each manufacturing job. This makes a total job loss of at least 31.5 million jobs just for these 100 areas.
Much of this is a value judgment, not just hard facts. To people like greyhounds, $, products and jobs are all equal. Tell that to a worker in an industry where the bulk of the jobs have been outsourced overseas in only a few years. Tell him/her to move across country and find another job and abandon their home which they cannot sell.
Please don't try to summarize my position. You don't understand my position and you do a very poor job when to try to get into my thought process and reasoning.
I know that when a manufacturing facility shuts down people suffer ecnomic pain. What I've been saying (and you've not been understanding) is that any "protection" of those people from that pain, such as limiting imports, will not eliminate the pain. It will simply shift the pain to other people in this country. The amount of economic pain inflicted on people in this country by the "protection" will, by necessity, exceed the benefits given to the people chosen to receive the protection.
If we stay with the ethanol example, the import tariff on ethanol does "protect" the people working at the Iowa ethanol plants. But it does so by forcing people in New Jersey to pay more for motor fuel. This automatically makes the folks in NJ less well off. Since they can't spend the paycheck twice they buy less. (and save less, and invest less). They have to cut back.
The net effect is huge when the protection involves something as basic as motor fuel. People aren't adding home aditions, they aren't buying Harleys, they aren't going out to dinner, etc. They have to buy less because they're spending their income on high cost ethanol from Iowa instead of lower cost ethanol from Brazil. This puts carpenters, facroty workers in Milwaukee, and waitresses, among untold others, out of work.
The negative effects of the "protection" have to always outweigh any benefits going to the "protected ones". If there was no tariff the New Jersey folks would have their motor fuel and money to buy extra things such as Harleys. With the tariff they just have the motor fuel. The tariff hurts them financially and that hurt cascades through the economy killing jobs.
You may not want to accept this, but it is reality.
Finally, if all somebody has to do to get a job is move, I'm not that concerned. It is imposible to totally remove pain from the economy. Moving may be a pain, but it ain't gonna' klll you.
Bucyrus RRKen The free market trajectory that is propelling this will quite likely see China building our locomotives and earthmovers before our standard of living equalizes with China’s. So we stand idle while our economy becomes completely devastated? "Just give up and give in folks, we cannot do a darn thing about it." And yet, you both sit here talking so nonchalantly as if this is just another summer thunderstorm passing, whilst sipping mint juleps on the veranda. "The little people will adjust." Gee, at least I am shouting it from the mountaintop. You tell me what we should do about it. How do we fix the problem? I thought you said that too many horses have already left the barn.
RRKen The free market trajectory that is propelling this will quite likely see China building our locomotives and earthmovers before our standard of living equalizes with China’s. So we stand idle while our economy becomes completely devastated? "Just give up and give in folks, we cannot do a darn thing about it." And yet, you both sit here talking so nonchalantly as if this is just another summer thunderstorm passing, whilst sipping mint juleps on the veranda. "The little people will adjust."
The free market trajectory that is propelling this will quite likely see China building our locomotives and earthmovers before our standard of living equalizes with China’s.
So we stand idle while our economy becomes completely devastated? "Just give up and give in folks, we cannot do a darn thing about it."
And yet, you both sit here talking so nonchalantly as if this is just another summer thunderstorm passing, whilst sipping mint juleps on the veranda. "The little people will adjust."
Gee, at least I am shouting it from the mountaintop. You tell me what we should do about it. How do we fix the problem? I thought you said that too many horses have already left the barn.
And indeed they did. What to do? Keep the horses we have left. It will be hard to explain in few words, and when I finish with my ideas today or tomorrow, I will transcribe them here. Stay tuned.
schlimm Railroads are not manufacturing jobs. Many of the auto jobs were lost before 2000. Sure, productivity has an influence on employment, but many of these jobs were in industrial sectors that no longer exist in the US. So not all the jobs lost went overseas, but a large number did.
Railroads are not manufacturing jobs. Many of the auto jobs were lost before 2000. Sure, productivity has an influence on employment, but many of these jobs were in industrial sectors that no longer exist in the US. So not all the jobs lost went overseas, but a large number did.
I'll agree with that.
I brought up railroads to illustrate the loss of well-paying blue collar jobs can be attributed to many causes.
nanaimo73I thought they started letting the Yuan float earlier this month?
The Chinese have not allowed the Yuan to float other currencies do. It has been loosened albeit somewhat, but it is not floated as you say.
schlimmInteresting discussion. When all is said and done, we have lost a large percentage of our manufacturing jobs and shipped them (not in a container) overseas. In May 2010, the number of manufacturing jobs in top 100 US markets had fallen to 6,641,900. That is a loss of 3,472,500 manufacturing jobs, a 34.33% decline.
I don't believe you can say those lost jobs went overseas. Some of them did, but not all of them. Look at railroads, where employment is only a fraction of what it once was. Those jobs didn't go overseas, many were replaced by machines. Perhaps a look at automotive manufacturing would be insightful. Employment in automotive manufacturing has dropped sharply in North America over the years, but has the number of vehicles produced here changed that much?
China refuses to let the yuan float and maintains it at an artificial level that makes its goods artificially cheap.
The sad part is that it has already happened. Whoever thought China was only producing trivial stuff is several years behind the times. There was brave talk about the US moving to the forefront in manufacturing so-called Green technology. But already China is the leading manufacturer of wind turbines, solar panels, low emission coal-fired generation, and on and on. As Bucyrus says, it is questionable whether or not tariffs would solve anything. But one important item left out of the discussion by the free-trade zealots (yes, it is like a religion with some of its advocates) is the lack of a free-market for currency. China refuses to let the yuan float and maintains it at an artificial level that makes its goods artificially cheap. That is killing our industries. One wonders what China will do once it has a near monopoly on much of the world's production in key sectors?
greyhounds Bucyrus I understand your explanation that a loss of manufacturing jobs is due to increases in domestic productivity. But the loss of jobs to cheaper foreign labor is an entirely different reason for the loss of manufacturing jobs. And the fact that U.S. manufacturing as a whole happens to be growing does not necessarily mean that we are not losing manufacturing. I would be skeptical of any source that implies that we are not losing any manufacturing. Obviously we are losing some of it to the lower wage countries, although our manufacturing growth may be bigger than the loss. If we were not losing any, the growth would be still greater. Certainly we are sending engineering and design work to India, China, and other low wage countries. U.S. engineers cannot live in the U.S. on the wages of Indian engineers. I agree that loss of manufacturing is not the only thing wrong right now with the economy. Not by a long shot. I don't think anyone has ever said we are not loosing "any". As I said, perfect doesn't exist. There's always going to be change. Factories in Muncie will close. To be succesfull we have to adapt to the changes, not fight the inevitable. The fact is that the US manufacturing segement of the economy is vibrant and growing. (or at least it was before the current economic unpleasantness) That doesn't mean that old factories don't shut down. That doesn't mean that the manufacture of light bulbs won't go overseas. Things change. We can't have "NO" loss. But as long as the gains overcome the losses, we'll be fine. Win some, loose some, some get rained out. If we win more than we loose it'll be OK. And we've been doing that. What do we make here? Well, locomotives for domestic use and export to China, aircraft for domestic use and export all over the world, Cat earthmovers that travel the world. Ford trucks, etc. We're good at it. If anyone is interested I'd reccomend the book "The Box, How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger" by Marc Levinson. That's what really changed things. Along with the Internet. Before containerization it was totally impractical to manufacture things such as televisions in far off lands and sell them in the US. The transporation costs provided a trade barrier. Container ships reduced the transportation cost to near zero, eliminated the trade barrier, and made the world economy bigger. Of course, the workers who formerly made the TV's in Bloomington, Indiana didn't appreciate this. But the container ships are reality. Complaining about reality is like complaining about rain. A useless waste of time. The Indian engineers are another reality. They're there. They exist. Before the Internet it was impractical to coordinate the efforts of an engineer working in India with directives from the US. Now it's easy. What do you want? A law against the reailties of the Indian engineers and the Internet? Things have changed. We have to change with them. If we do that we'll be fine. If we try to build a wall around the US it will be a disaster.
Bucyrus I understand your explanation that a loss of manufacturing jobs is due to increases in domestic productivity. But the loss of jobs to cheaper foreign labor is an entirely different reason for the loss of manufacturing jobs. And the fact that U.S. manufacturing as a whole happens to be growing does not necessarily mean that we are not losing manufacturing. I would be skeptical of any source that implies that we are not losing any manufacturing. Obviously we are losing some of it to the lower wage countries, although our manufacturing growth may be bigger than the loss. If we were not losing any, the growth would be still greater. Certainly we are sending engineering and design work to India, China, and other low wage countries. U.S. engineers cannot live in the U.S. on the wages of Indian engineers. I agree that loss of manufacturing is not the only thing wrong right now with the economy. Not by a long shot.
I don't think anyone has ever said we are not loosing "any". As I said, perfect doesn't exist. There's always going to be change. Factories in Muncie will close. To be succesfull we have to adapt to the changes, not fight the inevitable. The fact is that the US manufacturing segement of the economy is vibrant and growing. (or at least it was before the current economic unpleasantness) That doesn't mean that old factories don't shut down. That doesn't mean that the manufacture of light bulbs won't go overseas. Things change. We can't have "NO" loss. But as long as the gains overcome the losses, we'll be fine.
Win some, loose some, some get rained out. If we win more than we loose it'll be OK. And we've been doing that. What do we make here? Well, locomotives for domestic use and export to China, aircraft for domestic use and export all over the world, Cat earthmovers that travel the world. Ford trucks, etc. We're good at it.
If anyone is interested I'd reccomend the book "The Box, How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger" by Marc Levinson. That's what really changed things. Along with the Internet. Before containerization it was totally impractical to manufacture things such as televisions in far off lands and sell them in the US. The transporation costs provided a trade barrier. Container ships reduced the transportation cost to near zero, eliminated the trade barrier, and made the world economy bigger. Of course, the workers who formerly made the TV's in Bloomington, Indiana didn't appreciate this. But the container ships are reality. Complaining about reality is like complaining about rain. A useless waste of time.
The Indian engineers are another reality. They're there. They exist. Before the Internet it was impractical to coordinate the efforts of an engineer working in India with directives from the US. Now it's easy. What do you want? A law against the reailties of the Indian engineers and the Internet? Things have changed. We have to change with them. If we do that we'll be fine. If we try to build a wall around the US it will be a disaster.
My characterization that sounds like a complaint that the system is not perfect is directed to many who believe that world free trade is basically a perfect system with no downside whatsoever. They elaborate on that claim by saying that, with world free trade, everybody that is able to produce gets an equal chance to compete with others to produce the lowest cost product. So the perfection is that the world gets the best products at the lowest possible price. I have no disagreement with that as far as it goes.
But when you have a world system evolving over a long span of time without this balanced world trade model, and suddenly the world players embrace it, there can be a tremendous imbalance that explosively seeks equilibrium like the bursting of a dam. World free trade is a perfect system, but when it encounters these imbalances as it spreads, the imbalance can be highly destructive.
I am in favor of the free market, so I cannot easily see a remedy to this problem in the form of laws and protectionism. Certainly, I do not advocate building a wall around the U.S., and even if some degree of protectionism were wise in order to mitigate the pain of a too rapid transition, I have no confidence that government could do it right. So that does leave it just like the rain or something inevitable that is useless to complain about. But nevertheless, it is a big problem. There is a fine line between dismissing it as inevitable and putting one’s head in the sand. Even rainstorms require diligence.
I find little comfort in the snapshot that shows China to be only making the trivial products while we are making earthmovers and locomotives. The free market trajectory that is propelling this will quite likely see China building our locomotives and earthmovers before our standard of living equalizes with China’s. We are not going to just lose some manufacturing jobs due to obsolescence, as has been happening since the beginning of time. This is like a dam burst, and the wall of water has not hit yet. Right now, it just sort of looks unreal as it approaches. Many don’t even see it coming.
Even if corn isn't the best fuel source - that investment built the infrastructure. Without the investment in corn ethanol, we wouldn't have the plants, the tank cars, the unloading racks, etc.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann But reaching into the future can destroy the present. I look at it from a national security standpoint. Is it a good idea to trust all of our heavy manufacturing and engineering to other countries? Countries that may very well become *** off at us in the future? Now maybe that doesn't bother you - but it scares the hell out of me. If we don't have the means to be even the smallest bit self-sufficient, then we may very well be trading our freedom and security for a few extra million dollars for an already rich CEO that will fly to his private island when it hits the fan. The question should not be, "why shouldn't we use India for our engineers?".. it should be "why don't we have engineers in America"? I like the prospects of ethanol from algae, myself: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9966867-54.html
But reaching into the future can destroy the present. I look at it from a national security standpoint. Is it a good idea to trust all of our heavy manufacturing and engineering to other countries? Countries that may very well become *** off at us in the future? Now maybe that doesn't bother you - but it scares the hell out of me. If we don't have the means to be even the smallest bit self-sufficient, then we may very well be trading our freedom and security for a few extra million dollars for an already rich CEO that will fly to his private island when it hits the fan.
The question should not be, "why shouldn't we use India for our engineers?".. it should be "why don't we have engineers in America"?
I like the prospects of ethanol from algae, myself: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9966867-54.html
I like that idea too, along with cellulosic. And that's the point, there are a lot of good ideas, that need to be refined, and processes commercialized. From 2001 until now, processes for ethanol from corn using the dry mill method, has been vastly improved. New co-products are beyond the thinking phase, to where there are commercial installations ready. More producers are looking at other fuels, such as bio-mass for process heat. I said this a few years ago, one plant is very close to self-sufficiency as far as energy inputs, and it did not cost an arm and a leg.
And as for the former, It's too bad you had to even mention that Tom, it is such a basic concept. Maybe they do not teach that kind of thinking in economics school. From examples I see, they seem to not be able to see past the next quarter's reports.
greyhounds The US has never been "self-sufficient". One of the sparks of the American revolution was a tax on imported tea. The status of manufacturing half the world's goods was never going to last. Clinging to the past only destroys the future.
The US has never been "self-sufficient". One of the sparks of the American revolution was a tax on imported tea. The status of manufacturing half the world's goods was never going to last. Clinging to the past only destroys the future.
schlimm Interesting discussion. When all is said and done, we have lost a large percentage of our manufacturing jobs and shipped them (not in a container) overseas. In May 2010, the number of manufacturing jobs in top 100 US markets had fallen to 6,641,900. That is a loss of 3,472,500 manufacturing jobs, a 34.33% decline. Studies have shown that there are 8 - 10 supporting jobs for each manufacturing job. This makes a total job loss of at least 31.5 million jobs just for these 100 areas. Much of this is a value judgment, not just hard facts. To people like greyhounds, $, products and jobs are all equal. Tell that to a worker in an industry where the bulk of the jobs have been outsourced overseas in only a few years. Tell him/her to move across country and find another job and abandon their home which they cannot sell.
I might advice folks to follow the money, and move to where the jobs are. It is a reality, especially in rural areas where jobs are already limited. A sad reality however. The barn door is open, and too many of the horses and sheeps have already left the barn.
There is one plant in Louisiana that uses bagasse to produce ethanol, it is however much smaller than our local plants. A second plant down there is in progress, leaning towards the use of cellulosic processes. The problem is, the supply of other goods in order to produce ethanol. For example, there is ample sugar beet production to the west of you. However the economics have yet to be found. Sugar cane of course, will not grow much farther north than the gulf states.
To be succesfull we have to adapt to the changes, not fight the inevitable. The fact is that the US manufacturing segement of the economy is vibrant and growing.
I find that difficult to believe, since so much has left our shores. There are too many things that used to be made here, that are no longer. Yes, technology had a play in some of it. But not all of it.
Things change. We can't have "NO" loss.
I refuse to give up the ship like that. But thanks to the American Consumer, we have. And as I said before, the American Consumer did not care about his neighbors or friends. All they wanted was cheap. Well, they got it. Enjoy your fruit cups from China folks.
This conversation has drifted far from the subject matter of ethanol pipelines. And it's too bad that all this minutia gets in the way of encouraging an industry that can support us, instead of reliance on some other country supplying us.
greyhoundsIf anyone is interested I'd reccomend the book "The Box, How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger" by Marc Levinson.
I'd also recommend Levinson's book, though, IMHO, he didn't give enough credit to what had gone on in the rail industry prior to the 1950's and I didn't see any mention of Kneiling...
If we want to get smart about making ethanol we should be making it from sugar cane and not corn kernels. The kernels on a corn plant are probably 10% or less of its total weight. Brazil seems to be doing quite well at making it from sugar cane. 1 or 2 years ago someone down south started making ethanol from sugar cane. I've only read the first page so my apologies if someone else posted this same thing.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
Murray So Greyhounds, it says in your Bio that you are a "Marketing analyst/programer". Now supposing all your positions in your company were moved to India. Where would you be then? More importantly, would you still cling to this "concept" of capitalism as you see it?
So Greyhounds, it says in your Bio that you are a "Marketing analyst/programer".
Now supposing all your positions in your company were moved to India. Where would you be then?
More importantly, would you still cling to this "concept" of capitalism as you see it?
I'm still waitin' on an answer from you as to what the Federal Reserve did to "tank" the economy. You rejected their data on the growth of the manufacturing sector because you said they were part of the problem but you provided no specifics. I asked you just what they did and I am still waitin' on your reply.
As to what I'd do if every job was relocated to India, I'd probably do just what I did in 2009. Find a new employer. Of course, every job won't go over to India. You gotta' make yourself valuable.
JT22CW ]Something tells me that you aren't aware of reality, so I suggest you don't claim to cite it. Same goes for reading books by economic hacks. For a country that used to make half the world's goods, the fall has been huge. One does not "adapt" to losing one's self-sufficiency.
]Something tells me that you aren't aware of reality, so I suggest you don't claim to cite it. Same goes for reading books by economic hacks. For a country that used to make half the world's goods, the fall has been huge. One does not "adapt" to losing one's self-sufficiency.
What makes you believe that Marc Levinson is an "Economic Hack"? Have you read his book?
Seriously, you can learn a lot from reading books. Try the one on containerization by Levinson.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.