As an older tool & die / mold maker I to have been thinking about this
very question. The orinaginal poster is in a racing shop, this is about as
safe as one can get, as they need rapid turn over. Customer service will
win over price / unit eveytime. In the case of large scale manufacturing
the accountents have taken over, and a penny saved is a penny not spent.
It does not seem to matter that the rework / rejects pile up just get the
price per unit down!. I have had to rebuild many a china mold before it
was ever shot, but they are getting better and they are buying the high
speed maching centers faster then we are and they can press the green
button just as well as you can. The ony saving grace the U.S.A. has is
service, rapid turnover, and ingenuity. We often say to our selves I am
going to do it my way. And sometime it works. They on the other hand are
often told that they are going to do it the party way. If I was to start
over as a young man I would still be a machinist, it is who I am.

Ah hell... Thanks for letting me ramble.

Scott

I was just curious what you guys think about the future of
manufacturing in this country. You here alot of people say that there
will be no future 10 or 20 years from now. I'm 27 years old and have
been a machinist for 10 years,i was lucky to get a job in a big
machine shop when i was a senior in high school and have been lucky to
work with some of the old craftsman of the machining trade. I
consider myself very lucky to have worked with the people that i have.
I have been a machinist in Winston-cup racing since i was 18 so i am
in a different industry than alot of you guys,buy if i ever was to
decide to leave racing and work for a machine shop again i would like
for it to be in an industry that wasn't on the way across the big
pond. I would like to here from some of the shop owners on this as
well. Are alot of the shops still struggling to get work,and if so
which types of industries are the hardest hit. Which types do you
think will be around for years to come. I love the machining trade
alot,and would like to have my own shop someday(that's my dream
anyway). Are there any of you all that own a shop doing parts for the
racing industry or for custom bike,and car builders? If so how is that
type of business doing,that is what i'm wanting to do maybe 10 years
down the road. Thank you all for taking the time to read this and good
luck to you all.

If people don't quit buying the junk from across the pond we will all be
starving to death. Money talks and if people get back on the buy american plan
things might improve. In all actuality I feel there are too many unfeeling and
uncaring americans to ever bring things back to any level of manufacturing in
this country.

tim

The general trend is against manufacturing in the USA. I was fortunate
enough to get a generous buyout package around the time when my telecom
company decided to outsource their manufacturing. The company that they
outsourced to promptly moved half the jobs to Mexico.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics would have the numbers on manufacturing
employment, but I am willing to bet that they are steadily down.

I think that there will continue to be some manufacturing, especially
limited production high-tech type of equipment, or any kind of custom
equipment. (Like a stainless steel commercial kitchen, or a racecar).

If I do go back to work in manufacturing, I figure that I may look for a
liason job with one of the offshore or out of country manufacturing
companies, taking advantage of the fact that I speak Spanish. I am sure
that would not win me any friends among the buy American first crowd, as
that would be going over to the other side.

Sorry to be so pessimistic, but I see a steady multi-year trend. Maybe
we will export software and Hollywood movies and import everything else.
;-). Maybe since we are in the post-industrial age, manufacturing is no
longer as important as it used to be.

I was always a manufacturing guy, my father worked in a manufacturing
plant, and I never worked in any other environment. However, for me
personally it has all worked out, as now I get to play with metal!

Richard
http://www.fergusonsculpture.com


ROCKY HELMS wrote:

I was just curious what you guys think about the future of
manufacturing in this country. You here alot of people say that there
will be no future 10 or 20 years from now. I'm 27 years old and have
been a machinist for 10 years,i was lucky to get a job in a big
machine shop when i was a senior in high school and have been lucky to
work with some of the old craftsman of the machining trade. I
consider myself very lucky to have worked with the people that i have.
I have been a machinist in Winston-cup racing since i was 18 so i am
in a different industry than alot of you guys,buy if i ever was to
decide to leave racing and work for a machine shop again i would like
for it to be in an industry that wasn't on the way across the big
pond. I would like to here from some of the shop owners on this as
well. Are alot of the shops still struggling to get work,and if so
which types of industries are the hardest hit. Which types do you
think will be around for years to come. I love the machining trade
alot,and would like to have my own shop someday(that's my dream
anyway). Are there any of you all that own a shop doing parts for the
racing industry or for custom bike,and car builders? If so how is that
type of business doing,that is what i'm wanting to do maybe 10 years
down the road. Thank you all for taking the time to read this and good
luck to you all.

On 3 Aug 2003 19:32:34 -0700, (ROCKY HELMS)
wrote:

I was just curious what you guys think about the future of
manufacturing in this country. You here alot of people say that there
will be no future 10 or 20 years from now. I'm 27 years old and have
been a machinist for 10 years,i was lucky to get a job in a big
machine shop when i was a senior in high school and have been lucky to
work with some of the old craftsman of the machining trade. I
consider myself very lucky to have worked with the people that i have.
I have been a machinist in Winston-cup racing since i was 18 so i am
in a different industry than alot of you guys,buy if i ever was to
decide to leave racing and work for a machine shop again i would like
for it to be in an industry that wasn't on the way across the big
pond. I would like to here from some of the shop owners on this as
well. Are alot of the shops still struggling to get work,and if so
which types of industries are the hardest hit. Which types do you
think will be around for years to come. I love the machining trade
alot,and would like to have my own shop someday(that's my dream
anyway). Are there any of you all that own a shop doing parts for the
racing industry or for custom bike,and car builders? If so how is that
type of business doing,that is what i'm wanting to do maybe 10 years
down the road. Thank you all for taking the time to read this and good
luck to you all.

Interesting post. Im a machine tool mechanic and its been a VERY grim
3 yrs for manufacturing.

The medical parts shops seem to be doing pretty good.
The aerospace parts have been right in the toilet
The general job shops have been hurting, with auctions at an all time
high.

"Bottom Line" has caused a BUNCH of work to got to both Mexico, and
China. And now a lot of work is going to India and other countries
that work even cheaper than China, if you can imagine that.

However.... most of my clients report that requests for quotes are
picking up, purchase orders are starting to come in, and in general,
things are starting to speed up once again.
That for the short term....

In the long term...the outlook is bleak, at least to me and many of
the forecasters. The War is requiring new parts, as inventory items
are being depleted for all types of machinery, and that will continue
for some time. Stockholders/CFOs driven by short term profits will
continue to send work offshore.

A lot of small marginal and even some large marginal machine shops
have bit the big one, in the last 3-4 yrs.

There are some other aspects that need to be looked at though. Molds
for example, have been going overseas, but the return rate of utter
**** has been very high, and the surviving US shops report a lot of
rework of bad mold making. I suspect that a lot of folks are simply
going to start specing that US shops get the work, even if its
initially more expensive as the lead times and **** up rates with
overseas makers is approaching the break point, to keep it incountry.

"Just in time" orders often make it better, though not cheaper to keep
the work in the US.

On the other hand..US machine shops have learned to stream line,
become more efficient and more competative. Which reduces the costs
while keeping the famous US quality pretty good. If the offshore
machinists ever get the quality up to par with US shops..US machinist
will be in a world of ****.

There is a very active and aggressive movement afoot by various
organizations to force the US goverment into keeping parts sold to the
Government, made in the US. There are several reasons for this, not
the least of which is keeping the money at home, but also making sure
that critical parts for the military are not being made by a possible
future enemy..its a bitch if an Abrams tank needs a critical part, and
we have to order it from China, and we are ingaged in some issue with
China..... If we get involved in North Korea, and China pulls the plug
on trade with the US, critical items will take several years to tool
up and make their way into the supply lines.

Ed Huntress on alt.machines.cnc is senior editor for Machining
Magazine, and has written a series of articles on the subject, which
are very worth reading.

If I was young, and about to start a career, Id personally go into the
medical field, Xray, etc etc etc. Our aging population makes this a
growth industry, and the future is damned cloudy about
machining/manufacturing..shrug.

Please God, let there be another manufacturing boom, so I can make a
bit to put aside, and when I retire, not have to make the choice
between Kibbles N Bits and macaroni and cheese, and to LET me retire,
and not die on the job.

Gunner

"What do you call someone in possesion of all the facts? Paranoid.-William Burroughs

If you've got a job in racing, keep it, it's as immune to Chinese
competition as you're going to get.
I don't blame poor Americans for buying cheap imports, it may be all
they can afford. But for middle class and especially rich Americans,
it's pretty callous.-Jitney

Apart from the cost advantages of manufacturing offshore, especially
in Asia, there are other advantages. Manufacturing is an area filled
with risk and aggravation. Liability, health and safety , staff
training, specialist and expensive skills, etc. if you import rather
than manufacture, then you miss out on all that and just have
logistics and storage to worry about - which you would have had
anyway. Warehouse staff are a lot easier to get and cheaper than
toolmakers, diesetters, etc.
Geoff

"Vince Iorio" wrote in message
...
I don't think buying "American" is the real problem, though it is an
issue.

The problem is the mind set of businesses (i.e. management). They have
learned in
some class room that any risk is bad, and "capital" is bad. They would
rather get
quotes from 3 suppliers and go with the low bidder. Which is sort of sad
if you
think about it because they are suppose to be a "supplier".

I guess the real problem is that American business men do not know
anything about
manufacturing, therefore want to avoid it. They also don't know how to
plan more
then 1 year ahead.

I am told that Bose (they make speakers and radios) are an example how
manufacturing can work in this country. They have invested money into a
factory
that is highly automated, and located in a high cost labor area. They
have
designed there products to be "excellent" and to use as many common part
between
lines that make since. The result is a high quality, made in America
product.
(that I'm to cheap to buy, but that is besides the point).

Just buying American will not solve the problem,

Vince


Not always. I just got back from Oshkosh and attended the seminars with
Richard VanGrunsven on his RV aircraft. Afterwards I got to overhear some
of the discussion on his manufacturing parts of his kit in the Phillipines.
His problem is that if he gets simple sheet metal work done in the US, his
kit is substantial more expensive than the competition and he goes out of
business. So he is forced by market economics to go offshore. Quality is
not a problem as he can make the Filipinos do the work to a standard. He
doesn't do this due to greed and he isn't happy about it but he doesn't see
that he has a choice.

Steve.

Hi

This is topic that I have been thinking about quite a bit lately. I
design custom automated machines. In Southern Ontario where I live, I
would say 90% of manufacturing is somehow tied to the auto industry.
Although the Japanese car companies may assemble their cars in North
America, their plants create much fewer spin off jobs due to the fact
that most of the high value components such as the engine and
transmission come complete from overseas.

I can't blame the consumer for buying Japanese cars even though its
damaging their own economy because the North American car industry does
not even seem to be trying to compete in several important categories.
If you want a small fuel efficient car that is not loaded with useless
features you pretty well have to buy an import. If you want a car with
a diesel engine VW is your only choice. Why can't Detroit design a
small car that looks as good as an VW Jetta, why does the Toyota Matrix
look cool while the Pontiac Vibe look like a dogs breakfast when they
are pretty much the same car. Detroit is certainly not taking the long
view when all they try to push is gas guzzling pickups and SUVs.

stan

In article , Stanley Baer wrote:

This is topic that I have been thinking about quite a bit lately. I
design custom automated machines. In Southern Ontario where I live, I
would say 90% of manufacturing is somehow tied to the auto industry.

I also work with automated machinery in Southern Ontario, and while one of
my most recent jobs was at Stackpole which is, indeed, automotive, I find
that the majority of work for my particular niche is in pharmaceutical or
aggregates. I would expect that it would depend on what your field is.

I can't blame the consumer for buying Japanese cars even though its
damaging their own economy because the North American car industry does
not even seem to be trying to compete in several important categories.

I drive a GMC Tracker. The Tracker that I drive was assembled at the CAMI
plant in Ingersoll, Ontario. The vast majority of the parts were no doubt
made in Japan, and I doubt that buying a GMC Tracker is fundamentally
'better' for the economy than buying a Suzuki Sidekick (same car), but it
seems like buying domestic isn't that different than buying a
locally-assembled foreign car. What with GM dropping made-in-China
long-blocks into cars... is that really better?

If you want a small fuel efficient car that is not loaded with useless
features you pretty well have to buy an import.

Agreed, they are missing some markets. I bought the Tracker because I
wanted a SMALL SUV that was built the way they are, in my opinion, supposed
to be built, with a full frame, two-speed transfer case, and solid axles.
Good luck finding one, eh?

If you want a car with
a diesel engine VW is your only choice.

Pretty much, yeah. Good thing they make good engines...

are pretty much the same car. Detroit is certainly not taking the long
view when all they try to push is gas guzzling pickups and SUVs.

I heartily agree. Hummer 2? Geez.

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
|
http://www.metalmangler.com| Caledon, Ontario, Canada

Just my 2 cents...The future for us will be in niche markets, innovations,
high service level. The pendulum always swings both ways although the cycle
may be many decades. When will the third world be unionized, have
vacations, BBQ's? When will the playing field be level? Free trade? How
about FAIR trade? It will come but probably not in our life-time. I just
hope our children aren't so dumbed-down and programmed that they miss it.

Gunner writes:

Ed Huntress on alt.machines.cnc is senior editor for Machining
Magazine, and has written a series of articles on the subject, which
are very worth reading.

Here's one of them:

http://www.machiningmagazine.com/China.pdf

[This is from April. Are there URLs for the others?]

Interesting quote from the article:

"China pegs its yuan to the dollar at a fixed, official rate. The
rate is artificially low by as much as 40% according to The US
Senate Finance Committee. This gives them an edge in trade. The
US and other developed countries want them to float their
currency so it will rise, reflecting its real value. But Japan,
Korea, and Taiwan, to cite just a few examples, also have
artificially undervalued currencies, and they haven't done it by
setting official rates. They maintain large currency reserves
(China does, too) and they buy US Treasury securities when they
can; both measures keep their currencies low, and their exports
flowing out. There are many other tricks of the
currency-devaluing trade and there's no assurance that simply
floating China's currency will make a large dent in our trade
balance."

If I was young, and about to start a career, Id personally go into the
medical field, Xray, etc etc etc. Our aging population makes this a
growth industry, and the future is damned cloudy about
machining/manufacturing..shrug.

Our aging population can go to Mexico for medical treatment.
Many of them can't afford medical treatment here, because their
jobs were exported to China before they retired...

If I was young, and about to start a career, Id personally go into the
medical field, Xray, etc etc etc. Our aging population makes this a
growth industry, and the future is damned cloudy about
machining/manufacturing..shrug.

-Many insurance companies are sending X-rays over the wire to Indian
radiologists who will diagnose and work for $30,000 vs. an American
one that gets $300,000 over here. Much paperwork, such as medical
billing, is going over there too. Maybe victory gardens will keep us
alive...but wait, most homeowner associations (private democracy,
er... Stalinism) prohibit such subversive activity.-Jitney

"SRF" wrote in message
.com...

"Vince Iorio" wrote in message
...
I don't think buying "American" is the real problem, though it is an
issue.

The problem is the mind set of businesses (i.e. management). They have
learned in
some class room that any risk is bad, and "capital" is bad. They would
rather get
quotes from 3 suppliers and go with the low bidder. Which is sort of
sad
if you
think about it because they are suppose to be a "supplier".

I guess the real problem is that American business men do not know
anything about
manufacturing, therefore want to avoid it. They also don't know how to
plan more
then 1 year ahead.

I am told that Bose (they make speakers and radios) are an example how
manufacturing can work in this country. They have invested money into a
factory
that is highly automated, and located in a high cost labor area. They
have
designed there products to be "excellent" and to use as many common part
between
lines that make since. The result is a high quality, made in America
product.
(that I'm to cheap to buy, but that is besides the point).

Just buying American will not solve the problem,

Vince


Not always. I just got back from Oshkosh and attended the seminars with
Richard VanGrunsven on his RV aircraft. Afterwards I got to overhear some
of the discussion on his manufacturing parts of his kit in the
Phillipines.
His problem is that if he gets simple sheet metal work done in the US, his
kit is substantial more expensive than the competition and he goes out of
business. So he is forced by market economics to go offshore. Quality is
not a problem as he can make the Filipinos do the work to a standard. He
doesn't do this due to greed and he isn't happy about it but he doesn't
see
that he has a choice.

Steve.


As long as we pursue our present trade policies, few manufacturers have a
choice. They're locked into a free-trade dogma that says we're just reeds in
the current of inevitable trends. It all sounds a lot like Karl Marx and his
historic inevitability, only this time the idea that our economic fate is
sealed and inescapable is being promoted by multinational corporations and
our own government.

As I write this I'm listening to Commerce Secretary Don Evans on C-Span
talking about how many opportunities China's market is providing for us.
After interviewing a number of people in government on this subject over the
past few months, my feeling is that they're all utterly clueless -- or they
don't care that U.S. manufacturing is taking a beating. I believe it's some
of both.

Ed Huntress

"Ron Bean" wrote in message
...

Gunner writes:

Ed Huntress on alt.machines.cnc is senior editor for Machining
Magazine, and has written a series of articles on the subject, which
are very worth reading.

Here's one of them:

http://www.machiningmagazine.com/China.pdf

[This is from April. Are there URLs for the others?]

We've published two, and both are now accessible from
www.machiningmagazine.com. The third one is being written.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

"Ed Huntress" writes:

Here's one of them:

http://www.machiningmagazine.com/China.pdf

We've published two, and both are now accessible from
www.machiningmagazine.com. The third one is being written.

OK, I see the links now. The other one is at:
http://www.machiningmagazine.com/ToughQuestions.pdf

As I write this I'm listening to Commerce Secretary Don Evans on C-Span
talking about how many opportunities China's market is providing for us.

Those opportunities seem to be more ideological than real.

Several people have suggested linking imports to exports, dollar
for dollar. It would be difficult to enforce, and certain special
interests would scream bloody murder, but I think they'd actually
pick up more domestic business than they'd lose in foreign
business. Every country in the world wants to export more than
they import, but that's not a realistic expectation.

Yes, The Peg. Funny how no one in Congress complained about that peg
when it changed from 5.0 yuan to 8.2 in the early/mid nineties. Maybe
because Our currency was lower at the time. since then, the dollar has
surged and now looks at the Chinese RMB as being the evil culprit.

China can float their currency, but does anyone expect them to do so
for anyone elses benefit or for their own? Lets be realistic. We dont
change our currency for South America's benefit, now do we? (we just
bail them out with loans).

The Chinese RMB if floated would more than likely appreciate against
most major currencies in the near term. But there are many parts of
the Chinese economy that is not ready to assure a solid footing. Case
in point is the banks. They have a huge percent of non performing
loans. This could easily lead to a crash in their currency far worse
than what we see now. it has only happened Time and time again all
over the world these past 15 or so years. If you read their economists
views, they are trying to be cautious.

Both Taiwan and Hong Kong also peg to the US dollar. This was done out
of a need for stability. If HongKong removed the peg today, their
currency would probably devalue.Taiwan Just might also, since so much
of their mfg is moving to the mainland.

The answer to the original post is "innovation". Should we innovate,
we will survive. If we do not,most of our mfg will perish. What is the
logic in having toothpicks made in the USA. Many of you will agree
that there is no such logic. Well, why should it stop at toothpicks?
Lets face it, even satellite manufacturers are all having their
systems built and launched in China. If they can build satellites
cheaper, what makes anyone think they cant do automotive, machine
tools, or anything else between toothpicks and Satellites? One amusing
thing about the satellite issue was the blame in the USA was actually
put on Clinton in the 90's for giving satellite technology to China.
It wasnt Clinton, It was Loral, Boeing and all the rest who needed
China to be competitive. They freely gave this information to the
Chinese and even lobbied for the right to do so. A few were even fined
by Uncle Sam in later years for "giving too much". It is comical.
These companies were desperate and still are for that matter.

If we do not innovate, the USA mfg environment will be relegated to
small niche markets, and products of conveience. For example, items
that are big and heavy, with little dollar value, will cost too much
to ship by containers, so they can make them in Mexico or here in the
USA. Items that need JIT delivery schedules within a weeks time will
also have a good chance to stay.

But the best way for us to "break out" of this cycle is to innovate.
we did it with IT in the 90's. Now we just need to find that next
engine of growth and innovate. I would nominate energy as being the
best all around possibility, with the greatest potential. Cheap energy
independence would affect every single industry in the country and the
world. Only we would be the masters of a a new technology. The
possibilities are limitless.

Now would you like to donate 500 billion to my cause? Best spent 1/2
trill you ever saw.


(Ron Bean) wrote in message ...
Gunner writes:

Ed Huntress on alt.machines.cnc is senior editor for Machining
Magazine, and has written a series of articles on the subject, which
are very worth reading.

Here's one of them:

http://www.machiningmagazine.com/China.pdf

[This is from April. Are there URLs for the others?]

Interesting quote from the article:

"China pegs its yuan to the dollar at a fixed, official rate. The
rate is artificially low by as much as 40% according to The US
Senate Finance Committee. This gives them an edge in trade. The
US and other developed countries want them to float their
currency so it will rise, reflecting its real value. But Japan,
Korea, and Taiwan, to cite just a few examples, also have
artificially undervalued currencies, and they haven't done it by
setting official rates. They maintain large currency reserves
(China does, too) and they buy US Treasury securities when they
can; both measures keep their currencies low, and their exports
flowing out. There are many other tricks of the
currency-devaluing trade and there's no assurance that simply
floating China's currency will make a large dent in our trade
balance."

If I was young, and about to start a career, Id personally go into the
medical field, Xray, etc etc etc. Our aging population makes this a
growth industry, and the future is damned cloudy about
machining/manufacturing..shrug.

Our aging population can go to Mexico for medical treatment.
Many of them can't afford medical treatment here, because their
jobs were exported to China before they retired...

On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 05:04:12 GMT, Gunner
wrote:



Please God, let there be another manufacturing boom, so I can make a
bit to put aside, and when I retire, not have to make the choice
between Kibbles N Bits and macaroni and cheese, and to LET me retire,
and not die on the job.


It's likely a lot of us will never retire.
The US unions that haven't bargained away their jobs have secured some
pretty impressive retirement packages- that you and I get to pay for.
Something like $400 of every new Chrysler vehicle sold goes to paying
retirement benefits. Ford and GM price out at about $200 per vehicle.
Railroad benefits border on the obscene, as do older airlines.
Union truckers do pretty darn good, too.

Please God, when I die on the job, let me fall into a chipper and
leave one hell of a gory mess for someone to clean up.

-Carl

Things will get much, much worse and then they will get even worse.

Mass production will cease to exist in the United States.

Due to high speed global communications and transportation social
darwinism will accelerate.

Human beings, like any organism, are driven to survive and reproduce.

Survival may mean working for a pittance as in many third-world
countries or, for those fortunate enough, working with technology and
making somewhat more than a laborer.

Reproduction means there will be even more people competing for
resources and someone to do your job for lower pay.

The only guaranteed method of economic sucess is to exploit other
people. I point to Enron, Worldcom, and Aurthur Anderson as
examples. Even Bill Gates has his share of skeletons.

And if anyone thinks that economic considerations did not play a
major role in the U.S.A.s recent foreign adventuring, I have some
nice beachfront property in Nevada to sell you.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 02:54:03 -0000, Akston wrote:
And if anyone thinks that economic considerations did not play a
major role in the U.S.A.s recent foreign adventuring, I have some
nice beachfront property in Nevada to sell you.

It is worth noting that Rome was not a great manufacturing
power, but they did rule the known world. That position brought
the citizens of Rome great wealth by controlling the flow of
natural resources and the delivery of goods and services.

Gary

"Ron Bean" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" writes:

Here's one of them:

http://www.machiningmagazine.com/China.pdf

We've published two, and both are now accessible from
www.machiningmagazine.com. The third one is being written.

OK, I see the links now. The other one is at:
http://www.machiningmagazine.com/ToughQuestions.pdf

As I write this I'm listening to Commerce Secretary Don Evans on C-Span
talking about how many opportunities China's market is providing for us.

Those opportunities seem to be more ideological than real.

Several people have suggested linking imports to exports, dollar
for dollar. It would be difficult to enforce, and certain special
interests would scream bloody murder, but I think they'd actually
pick up more domestic business than they'd lose in foreign
business. Every country in the world wants to export more than
they import, but that's not a realistic expectation.



I hesitate to stir this hash up, because it gets complicated in a hurry, but
some countries don't want to export more than they import. The U.S., for
example. Our policies are not oriented toward running a "positive" trade
balance. And that's by design.

The trouble with our trade policy is not trade deficits per se, but (IMO)
overwhelming "surges" of trade deficits. In fact, we haven't had the kind of
big surges yet that worry me. What worries me is the surges we're likely to
face in the next five to ten years.

For example, Ford is now importing $1B worth of car parts from China. In
2010, they plan to import $10B worth. GM is now importing roughly $2.1B from
China. In 2007, they plan to import $20B worth.

That's real money, and that's enough outsourcing to kill a lot of companies
in our automotive supply chain. Nobody has ever seen a surge like that in
modern times. I don't think we can survive it without a hell of a lot of dam
age to our employment structure and to our economy as a whole.

The current administration is betting on the idea that cutting taxes will
stimulate enough business and job creation to make up the difference. On
paper, it probably works out. In practice, I'm afraid that the job creation
they have in mind is a generalized abstraction, and that they have no
specific ideas about where these jobs will come from. They have a '50s
mentality and a '50s-type of blind faith in "innovation" and "growth." They
appear to think these jobs spring up by magic. Optimism is a powerful force
but it can also be a dangerous delusion. I can't picture the displaced tool
& die makers in this country being re-trained for jobs in currency exchange
and stock brokerage.

There are big issues involved that are over the heads of most of us. One is
the ability of currency-value adjustments to overcome fixed exchange rates.
Another is the real value of our exports of financial services. There are
many other financial issues that require more expertise than most of us
have.

Anyway, keep reading _Machining_. We won't wimp out on these difficult
issues, but we aren't going to explain the world economy or solve it in a
couple of articles, either. g

Ed Huntress

Carl Byrns wrote:

It's likely a lot of us will never retire.
Please God, when I die on the job, let me fall into a chipper and
leave one hell of a gory mess for someone to clean up.

That's a bit sad - I hope you haven't got any friends and family!

I'm a software developer by day, metalwork is something I'm studying as
a hobby, but I'm also planning on getting good at it over the next few
decades so that when I retire I can try to supplement my income by
making pretty and/or useful things to sell at craft fairs!

-Carl

ABS

I'm in the same situation that your in, and I think about this all the
time. I'm 25 and have been in the trade now for 6 years. I doubt the
company where I work at now will be in the business in 5 years. The
company is basically an assembly plant and they pay very low wages to
their employees. I believe it's just a matter of time before they
pack up and head east. Nevertheless, I'm going to tough it out here
as long as I can. But in the mean time, I'm also going to college to
learn something else. Like others have said, you have a good job in
racing. If you like it, then I'd probably stay there. I'd work all
the overtime I could and save my money for the future.

I don't know if this was mentioned already, but I was reading in a
magazine about something called micro machining. It involves making
tiny parts with very small cutting tools. The article went on to
mention that this may be a successful field for a machinist to pursue.
It may be something to consider.

Here's a question to the group: What if there was a war in the China
region and they were unable to make or deliver products for their
customers(the world). Do you think this would bring back some
manufacturing to the US?

Jody

"bg" wrote in message
om...


But the best way for us to "break out" of this cycle is to innovate.
we did it with IT in the 90's. Now we just need to find that next
engine of growth and innovate. I would nominate energy as being the
best all around possibility, with the greatest potential. Cheap energy
independence would affect every single industry in the country and the
world. Only we would be the masters of a a new technology. The
possibilities are limitless.

And what if another IT doesn't come along? And why would we have an
exclusive on new energy technology?

Technology has become a commodity on world markets. IT may be the last big
example in which one county had an edge. The reason we had an edge in IT for
so long is that Europe made a big mistake, protecting their emerging IT
market with quotas. And Japan made another mistake, with "industrial
planning," putting huge government support behind particular chip
technologies, which quickly became obsolete.

China and India have learned from those mistakes of others and are not
likely to make them again.

One US tool company manager who traveled to China early this year was struck
by seeing more advanced EDMs and molding presses on plant floors than the
ones that are used by US industry. The linear-motor Sodicks and long rows of
German presses knocked him out. The Chinese can implement new technology
fast enough to make your head spin. And U.S. companies that invest there
tend to put in better technology than that which they have in their North
American plants. Shanghai-GM's new engine line, which is now starting to
make the complete engines for the 2004 Chevy Equinox SUV (to be installed in
Canada, and then shipped to the US), probably is the most advanced engine
manufacturing line in the world.

It's hard to imagine an innovation on which we would have an exclusive for
very long.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. net...
"bg" wrote in message
om...


But the best way for us to "break out" of this cycle is to innovate.
we did it with IT in the 90's. Now we just need to find that next
engine of growth and innovate. I would nominate energy as being the
best all around possibility, with the greatest potential. Cheap energy
independence would affect every single industry in the country and the
world. Only we would be the masters of a a new technology. The
possibilities are limitless.

And what if another IT doesn't come along? And why would we have an
exclusive on new energy technology?


That is always the question! What will we do if we cannot make buggy
whips?
There is no guarantee that we will have a lock on any new technology. What
can give us the edge is to have a society that is receptive to change. The
attitude that we must protect industries where we were successful is
fatal. Japan is no better example.

New technology favors no one. The ones that will win are those that
are willing to embrace it.

Technology has become a commodity on world markets. IT may be the last big
example in which one county had an edge. The reason we had an edge in IT
for
so long is that Europe made a big mistake, protecting their emerging IT
market with quotas. And Japan made another mistake, with "industrial
planning," putting huge government support behind particular chip
technologies, which quickly became obsolete.


Technology is not a commodity. Existing technologies become commodities.
How can new technologies be commodities? We don't even know what they
are.

China and India have learned from those mistakes of others and are not
likely to make them again.


We don't know if China and India have learned from other's mistakes,
they have not had the opportunity to make their own mistakes. Only
time will tell. Who would have thought that Japan would self-distruct?

One US tool company manager who traveled to China early this year was
struck
by seeing more advanced EDMs and molding presses on plant floors than the
ones that are used by US industry. The linear-motor Sodicks and long rows
of
German presses knocked him out. The Chinese can implement new technology
fast enough to make your head spin. And U.S. companies that invest there
tend to put in better technology than that which they have in their North
American plants. Shanghai-GM's new engine line, which is now starting to
make the complete engines for the 2004 Chevy Equinox SUV (to be installed
in
Canada, and then shipped to the US), probably is the most advanced engine
manufacturing line in the world.

It's hard to imagine an innovation on which we would have an exclusive for
very long.


No one is given a free ride. It is very damaging to expect one. If we
concentrate
on using governmental protection for industries where we have had past
success,
we will surely miss the boat for the next new thing. Indeed, the "next new
thing"
has been our savior many times in the past. What gives people weak knees
it
that it is awfully hard to see where the next one is coming from.

Perhaps it is useful to have these arguments because we get delayed in
doing anything too damaging.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

None of these arguments are new. I just hope that we don't follow the
protectionist course, it will surely be our doom.

Pete.

In article , Carl says...

It's likely a lot of us will never retire.

You got that right. I think I'm gonna probably
be working forever. At one time the average
length of time that my company paid out retirement
benefits was measured in 'months' units.

Much less than a year.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

It's likely a lot of us will never retire.

You got that right. I think I'm gonna probably
be working forever. At one time the average
length of time that my company paid out retirement
benefits was measured in 'months' units.

Much less than a year.

Of course, there is always the very good possibility that you will be given
your freedom involuntarily. My former company had three employees over 60.
Mysteriously, all of us were liberated during the last downsizing. All of were
ready to leave, just didn't like someone else making the decision.

Fortunately, I was prepared and could retire without trauma.

Earle Rich
Mont Vernon, NH

"Peter Reilley" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. net...
"bg" wrote in message
om...


But the best way for us to "break out" of this cycle is to innovate.
we did it with IT in the 90's. Now we just need to find that next
engine of growth and innovate. I would nominate energy as being the
best all around possibility, with the greatest potential. Cheap energy
independence would affect every single industry in the country and the
world. Only we would be the masters of a a new technology. The
possibilities are limitless.

And what if another IT doesn't come along? And why would we have an
exclusive on new energy technology?


That is always the question! What will we do if we cannot make buggy
whips?
There is no guarantee that we will have a lock on any new technology.
What
can give us the edge is to have a society that is receptive to change.

And what would you like to change to? Our edge now is in financial
innovation. Are you ready to re-train to become an arbitrageur? g

Our receptiveness to change doesn't seem to be doing much for manufacturing.
If you take a very broad view, and consider "change" to be any economic
activity that responds to opportunities in the markets, you probably have a
point. But that generally means change *away from* implementing
manufacturing capability in the United States. If you happened to read my
first article on the subject, "The China Conundrum," you noticed that I
broke economic interests in manufacturing into six categories. The people in
the top categories think that things are just fine. Those are the people who
have no personal interest in keeping manufacturing in the US from going to
pot. The people in the bottom categories are people like you, me, and nearly
everyone else involved directly with manufacturing.

The
attitude that we must protect industries where we were successful is
fatal. Japan is no better example.

Japan is an example of something, but the problems that stem from protecting
industries probably isn't it. That was a source of trouble but probably not
the trouble that's put them into the financial bind they're in now.



New technology favors no one. The ones that will win are those that
are willing to embrace it.

The Chinese are embracing it big-time. Or, we should say, the foreign
multinationals who are investing in China's manufacturing are embracing it
big-time.

Technology has become a commodity on world markets. IT may be the last
big
example in which one county had an edge. The reason we had an edge in IT
for
so long is that Europe made a big mistake, protecting their emerging IT
market with quotas. And Japan made another mistake, with "industrial
planning," putting huge government support behind particular chip
technologies, which quickly became obsolete.


Technology is not a commodity. Existing technologies become commodities.
How can new technologies be commodities? We don't even know what they
are.

They're commodities because the multinationals that invest in their
implementation can now do so anywhere they choose. And where they choose is
the countries with the lowest wages and with sufficient infrastructure to
function.



China and India have learned from those mistakes of others and are not
likely to make them again.


We don't know if China and India have learned from other's mistakes,
they have not had the opportunity to make their own mistakes.

Oh, yes, they've already avoided many of Japan's mistakes. They're making
some of their own, and some of them look larger than the mistakes the
Japanese made. It's quite right that we don't know yet what the long term
outcome will be.

In the meantime, though, how long are you willing to hold your breath to
find out? China is ten times larger than Japan, with many times the
manufacturing capability and with a FAR heavier weight of unemployment and
underemployed peasantry that are holding wages down. They probably will be
able to undercut us in manufacturing costs for at least another two to three
decades. Unlike Japan, they have the full assistance and compliance of the
world's largest corporations in doing so. They aren't competing with
Motorola, Ford, and General Motors. The competition coming from China IS
Motorola, Ford, and General Motors.

And China's manufacturing isn't the only example of the new reality we're
facing. There's also India, which is now able to perform many of our
financial and computer services perfectly well from halfway around the
world, in the blink of an eye. That's innovation for you, eh?

Only
time will tell. Who would have thought that Japan would self-distruct?

Some economists, as far back as 1980, realized that their industrial policy
was going to cause them trouble if they didn't drop it when it got in the
way. But many of those people thought the Japanese were smart enough and
quick enough to recognize it, and that they'd get rid of it when the time
was right.

In general, those economists had the right idea, but the problem cropped up
in a different place than many thought it would. Some say the Japanese lost
their edge when they succumbed to world pressure to let the yet float upward
in value. Most believe, however, that the problem stemmed from the same
cultural factors that led them to follow the authority of MITI and their
penchant for respecting authority without question. The result was a
financial system they couldn't fix because they couldn't acknowledge the
enormity of their mistakes. They couldn't fix their problems fast enough,
and they piled up.


One US tool company manager who traveled to China early this year was
struck
by seeing more advanced EDMs and molding presses on plant floors than
the
ones that are used by US industry. The linear-motor Sodicks and long
rows
of
German presses knocked him out. The Chinese can implement new technology
fast enough to make your head spin. And U.S. companies that invest there
tend to put in better technology than that which they have in their
North
American plants. Shanghai-GM's new engine line, which is now starting to
make the complete engines for the 2004 Chevy Equinox SUV (to be
installed
in
Canada, and then shipped to the US), probably is the most advanced
engine
manufacturing line in the world.

It's hard to imagine an innovation on which we would have an exclusive
for
very long.


No one is given a free ride. It is very damaging to expect one. If we
concentrate
on using governmental protection for industries where we have had past
success,
we will surely miss the boat for the next new thing. Indeed, the "next
new
thing"
has been our savior many times in the past.

I recognize your feeling here, Pete, but I believe your faith in "the next
new thing" is misplaced. The point is that the next new thing is unlikely to
be ours, or anyone else's, salvation. Technology doesn't take a decade to
cross borders today. It doesn't take a few years. In fact, you may find, as
in the case of the new Shanghai-GM engine line, it winds up being
implemented in the low-wage country before it's implemented in the country
that invented it.

That's because we've been so successful in breaking down the barriers to
capital flow. The multinationals have gotten what they really wanted most of
all: the ability to implement new technologies anywhere they want to,
wherever the wages and other costs are lowest. And what they don't own,
they'll buy from the low-wage countries.

What gives people weak knees
it that it is awfully hard to see where the next one is coming from.

What makes some of us cautious is the recognition that we're relying on
yesterday's solutions to a new kind of problem, one that we've never seen
before.


Perhaps it is useful to have these arguments because we get delayed in
doing anything too damaging.

The arguments have to be made to Congress and the administration. Our trade
policies have to be based on a fuller recognition of what's happening in
manufacturing. And we have to be more transparent about our trade policies.
If you read the policy journals, such as _Foreign Affairs_, you get the
feeling that the whole trade agenda is something that's being cooked up
behind closed doors, with no public access to the real planning or
negotiations.

None of these arguments are new. I just hope that we don't follow the
protectionist course, it will surely be our doom.

The traditional forms of protectionism, which are punitive tariffs and
quotas, subsidies, and non-trade exclusionary barriers, are usually a bad
thing, based on their history. Not always, but usually. Trade barriers
helped Japan wrench itself from peasantry to world manufacturing dominance
in less than 30 years, so you have to be cautious when you impugn
protectionism as an absolute.

However, we do need something more than relying on blind faith in
"innovation." If you read the assertions of our Commerce Dept., you realize
that, if they believe what they're saying, they're off in the ozone
somewhere, paying attention to the things that they like and ignoring the
things they don't. And I do believe that they believe what they're saying.

Our US Trade Representative is another matter. The people who are making
policy at that level are smart, subtle, and sophisticated. But they have an
agenda that isn't well understood by most of us. For example, after decades
of pushing for a unified world market through the WTO, they've now broken
ranks with most of the developed world and they're pursuing regional trade
blocks, such as NAFTA, and bilateral trade deals. It's all based on an
agenda that we don't fully understand, because they don't talk very openly
about it.

We'll be writing more about it in _Machining_. Stay tuned.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

(Jody7818) wrote in
om:

I don't know if this was mentioned already, but I was reading in
a magazine about something called micro machining. It involves
making tiny parts with very small cutting tools. The article
went on to mention that this may be a successful field for a
machinist to pursue.
It may be something to consider.

Real micromachining uses silicon processing methods (the methods used
to make computer chips).

If you want to do this be prepared to get a Bachelors or Masters
degree in a "hard" science (usually EE, also ME, Physics, Mat. Sci.,
sometimes BioE, or ChemE).

Ed,

I am inclined to agree with Peter on this one. There are a few ways
that we can try our best to protect the technology, but of course
people will come up with variations to that technology and any real
permanent protection will be futile. This is a concern, but only
because of the initial investment. The end result would be independent
access to greater sources of energy. Imagine being free from the use
and expense of oil to a great degree!

Further, judging from the size of the project needed to accomplish
this, it would take years for anyone to come up with duplicate
technologies and near as much investment.

This is really just my case for what the next "engine of growth"
should be. I dont think we could see any greater gains from any other
industry. But I am not selfish, I will take anything, ok?

In regards to the factories in China. I know, I visit every year. You
are absolutely correct about the modern equipment in many facilities.
The USA mould industry is all but wiped out. Not just because the
Southern Chinese do it chepaer, but they also have more advanced
equipment. This is mirrored all over the country in many industries.

But we have to keep thinking positive, while realizing the negative.
We need better research, better funding in the right places. Better
focus. Bush proposed a $1 billion investment in new energy technology.
It is a drop in the bucket. Oilmen were laughing all the way to the
bank, ****ing in their pants. $1 billion is a joke. We need continuous
investment and research on a similar level as the manhattan project.
There is nothing we cant do, if we set our minds to it.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message .net...
"bg" wrote in message
om...


But the best way for us to "break out" of this cycle is to innovate.
we did it with IT in the 90's. Now we just need to find that next
engine of growth and innovate. I would nominate energy as being the
best all around possibility, with the greatest potential. Cheap energy
independence would affect every single industry in the country and the
world. Only we would be the masters of a a new technology. The
possibilities are limitless.

And what if another IT doesn't come along? And why would we have an
exclusive on new energy technology?

Technology has become a commodity on world markets. IT may be the last big
example in which one county had an edge. The reason we had an edge in IT for
so long is that Europe made a big mistake, protecting their emerging IT
market with quotas. And Japan made another mistake, with "industrial
planning," putting huge government support behind particular chip
technologies, which quickly became obsolete.

China and India have learned from those mistakes of others and are not
likely to make them again.

One US tool company manager who traveled to China early this year was struck
by seeing more advanced EDMs and molding presses on plant floors than the
ones that are used by US industry. The linear-motor Sodicks and long rows of
German presses knocked him out. The Chinese can implement new technology
fast enough to make your head spin. And U.S. companies that invest there
tend to put in better technology than that which they have in their North
American plants. Shanghai-GM's new engine line, which is now starting to
make the complete engines for the 2004 Chevy Equinox SUV (to be installed in
Canada, and then shipped to the US), probably is the most advanced engine
manufacturing line in the world.

It's hard to imagine an innovation on which we would have an exclusive for
very long.

"Ed Huntress" writes:

I hesitate to stir this hash up, because it gets complicated in a hurry...

I understand, but I'm not sure we have a choice. This may not be
the right forum for it, but I also need to find a new career, and
so far I haven't heard of one that's not scheduled to shrink.
(I'm open to suggestions.)

It's a little hard to tell because of where we are in the
business cycle-- right now *every* business has too many people
in it, but that will change in the short run. I'm more concerned
about retraining for a new career and then having it drop out
from under me (as happened to many people in the IT business).

some countries don't want to export more than they import. The U.S., for
example.

I'm not aware of any others. And I don't see how it's sustainable
(in terms of dollars, not necessarily manufactured goods). We've
minimized the effects via inflation in the past.

The trouble with our trade policy is not trade deficits per se, but (IMO)
overwhelming "surges" of trade deficits.

Nobody has ever seen a surge like that in
modern times. I don't think we can survive it without a hell of a lo
of dam
age to our employment structure and to our economy as a whole.

That's what happened to the farm economy in the 1920s, when there
was a huge jump in productivity. Most of those people found other
jobs-- *ten years later*.

In practice, I'm afraid that the job creation
they have in mind is a generalized abstraction, and that they have no
specific ideas about where these jobs will come from.

In theory, they're not supposed to-- it "just happens". The hole
in the theory is that we're supposed to be able to live off our
savings until the new jobs appear, no matter how long that takes.

There are big issues involved that are over the heads of most of us.

I'm not sure we have a choice about it.

(SMuel10363) wrote in
:

Here's a question to the group: What if there was a war in the China
region and they were unable to make or deliver products for their
customers(the world). Do you think this would bring back some
manufacturing to the US?

I don't think we could affort to buy our own products because so many of
us are out of work from the manufacturing move overseas. Even if it did
come back, I doubt we'd have enough skilled craftsman to handle
it....maybe I'm thinking too small.

In any case, my hat is off to all you old timers that served your
appreticeships and learned and loved your craft. I wished I could learn
..0001% of what you all know. Be proud of what you did and who you are.
I'll never forget....

Marty

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 03:39:37 -0400, Gary R Coffman
wrote:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 02:54:03 -0000, Akston wrote:
And if anyone thinks that economic considerations did not play a
major role in the U.S.A.s recent foreign adventuring, I have some
nice beachfront property in Nevada to sell you.

It is worth noting that Rome was not a great manufacturing
power, but they did rule the known world. That position brought
the citizens of Rome great wealth by controlling the flow of
natural resources and the delivery of goods and services.

Gary

Right, but we seem to have it backwards. I don't recall reading about
Caesar making a famous speech before the Senate asking for 100,000,000
denarius to rebuild Gaul after he just finished sacking it.


Jack

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 03:39:37 -0400, Gary R Coffman
wrote:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 02:54:03 -0000, Akston wrote:
And if anyone thinks that economic considerations did not play a
major role in the U.S.A.s recent foreign adventuring, I have some
nice beachfront property in Nevada to sell you.

It is worth noting that Rome was not a great manufacturing
power, but they did rule the known world. That position brought
the citizens of Rome great wealth by controlling the flow of
natural resources and the delivery of goods and services.


Were there any countries that were great manufacturing powers at that
point in history?



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 12:23:08 +0100, Alaric B Snell
wrote:

Carl Byrns wrote:

It's likely a lot of us will never retire.
Please God, when I die on the job, let me fall into a chipper and
leave one hell of a gory mess for someone to clean up.

That's a bit sad - I hope you haven't got any friends and family!

Sorry- I meant to be semi- humorous.

I'm a software developer by day, metalwork is something I'm studying as
a hobby, but I'm also planning on getting good at it over the next few
decades so that when I retire I can try to supplement my income by
making pretty and/or useful things to sell at craft fairs!

A lot of 'craft fair' items are semi-assembled from kits made in Asia.
The 'crafters' just paint the birdhouse/teacup/pencil holder and sell
it. Really.

-Carl

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 00:22:33 -0000, (Ron Bean) wrote:
"Ed Huntress" writes:

I hesitate to stir this hash up, because it gets complicated in a hurry...

I understand, but I'm not sure we have a choice. This may not be
the right forum for it, but I also need to find a new career, and
so far I haven't heard of one that's not scheduled to shrink.
(I'm open to suggestions.)

Ok. The biggest growth field over the next 20 years is going to be
in the medical field, particularly any job which deals with geriatrics.
Medical technicians, physician's assistants, pharmacists, nurses,
etc, are all going to be in high demand.

Gary

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 23:13:53 GMT, (Old Nick) wrote:
You need to be specialised or at least very high-value, able to do a
really good job of a one-off, able to deal with the customer NOW and
properly, with constant interaction.

This will probably make your job labour and time intensive. And you
will do few jobs but cost a lot. Racing and other urgent, specialist
areas are the way to go. Trouble is, you will have to be _good_
because the free-for-all is now all overseas.

Right, you primarily have to be service oriented. Mass production
is fleeing the high wage countries, and it isn't likely to come back.
You have to find a niche where you can perform an individualized
service. In other words, you have to sell yourself and your skills
at the retail level instead of at the wholesale level of mass production.

Gary

"bg" wrote in message
om...

In regards to the factories in China. I know, I visit every year. You
are absolutely correct about the modern equipment in many facilities.
The USA mould industry is all but wiped out. Not just because the
Southern Chinese do it chepaer, but they also have more advanced
equipment. This is mirrored all over the country in many industries.

But we have to keep thinking positive, while realizing the negative.
We need better research, better funding in the right places. Better
focus. Bush proposed a $1 billion investment in new energy technology.
It is a drop in the bucket. Oilmen were laughing all the way to the
bank, ****ing in their pants. $1 billion is a joke. We need continuous
investment and research on a similar level as the manhattan project.
There is nothing we cant do, if we set our minds to it.

Let's separate energy and manufacturing, to keep things straight. Regarding
manufacturing, it isn't the Chinese who are implementing new technology.
It's the US-, Japanese-, and EU-based multinationals that have partnerships
or their own factories in China. When they have a new innovation they want
to put in place, they now put it in place in one of their factories in a
low-wage country, not in the US. As you say, China's best manufacturing
companies now have some of the world's best technology. So the "innovation"
argument is a dead-flat loser.

Regarding energy, what is it you're thinking about? Fusion? Solar? What?
What is it that we could innovate that wouldn't show up in China before
you've turned your back?

Here's the question you have to ask yourself: Who has the capital to
implement these things, and where is it in their interest to implement them?
The first answer is, large multinationals. The second answer is, where it
will be most profitable for them. And the answer to that is China.

The only thing that would drive a really large US-government-funded research
project in energy is an immediate energy crisis. Not some crisis predicted
for the future, but one that exists right now, today. That's the reality.

Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress
says...

Regarding energy, what is it you're thinking about? Fusion? Solar? What?
What is it that we could innovate that wouldn't show up in China before
you've turned your back?

Maybe the energy costs in China are lower than here, because
they run everything on soft coal with no polution controls?

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Sunworshiper" wrote in message
...


Vey good Ed , sounds like you have a good grasp of it. I think their
agenda is to level the playing feild world wide and thus the top will
come down and meet the bottom rising ... someday. Its a good plan and
has to be done someday. Not in the right hands and timely if you ask
me. Something is fishy .

When I get caught waiting at a usa car lot I have to ask where the
engine is made on this car and they don't know or won't answer.
Let us not play games.

Well, as for China's "agenda," it's simply to improve the lives of their
people and to become an economic power like the other economically advanced
countries. Nothing would be better for the US than for Chinese machinists to
be making $50,000/year.

I seriously doubt if most car salesmen have the slightest idea where the
engines in their cars are made.

Ed Huntress