America the Rusted

Ever since the American Civil War, industrial capacity has been the engine behind US military might.  While the South might have out-soldiered the North, the North out-produced them.  WWII was won by American industry, that supplied both its own and the Soviet armies.

World War II was American power at its peak.  German prisoners being transported by train to POW camps stared out at the industrial plants as they passed and asked themselves:  How could we have ever challenged such a nation with such productive capacity?

But follow the same route now, and everywhere you will see ruin:  derelict plants, abandoned factories, rusting scrap heaps.  The region that used to be the heart of American power is now called the Rust Belt.  The muscle of American industry has atrophied.  The forces of globalization have rotted it away.  Manufacturing is no longer the engine of the nation's economy, and as industrial capacity declines, so does our military capacity.

For the first time since America emerged as a first-rank war and industrial power in the 1890s, some U.S. military planners openly doubt the country's manufacturers can sustain the nation in a major war larger than the Iraq conflict.

"What kind of superpower are you if you can't make what you need?'' asked systems engineer Sheila Ronis, a lecturer at the Pentagon's Industrial College of the Armed Forces.

The decline of the Detroit auto industry and the rise of industrial China have decimated a supporting cast of die, machine, mold and tooling shops, a metalworks industry centered in Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio.
For the same reason imported chairs, televisions and clothes fill American homes, imported parts appear in increasing volumes in military hardware. Imports cost less than homemade.

While no one is sure how many imported parts are used in weapons systems, a growing chorus of researchers and trade groups express concern. They warn the rise of imports and the demise of the metalworks trades threaten the nation's manufacturing base.

http://www.indystar.com/...

Increasingly, the only plants that survive are those that are subsidized by government conracts, insulated from the market forces that drive consumer-based manufacturing either into bankruptcy or overseas.  But how much of the supply chain, the necessary parts, the raw materials, is still produced in this country?  What if it were cut off?

The United States is increasingly senescent, a declining, dying power holding onto its empire only by force.  But even this is almost beyond us.  Compared to WWII, the Iraq War is a minor effort, yet it has all but exhausted US military capacity, both human and material.  How far we have fallen, how weak we have become.

•  I've long thought that a winning progressive...

  ...argument was that Republicans put profit before national security.

  We are literally having many of our rights under the Constitution stripped away in the name of security, but if there is any proposal to preserve jobs and industries in America it is attacked as "protectionistic" or as "interfering with The Market."  The "free market" is not free and "free trade" is not "free."  Both cost the American working and middle class billions in subsidies and corporate welfare.

  The perfect comeback is that Republicans put their right to make profits ahead of keeping the nation and it's people safe and secure.  After the fiascos of halliburton in Iraq, the katrina reconstruction, the obscenity of the health care system, etc. Americans might be less inclined to have a knee-jerk reaction in favor of supporting the unfettered "free-market."

  by wonkydonkey on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 10:41:33 AM PDT

•  Good to hear that there's at least one up-side

  to the out-sourcing of American Jobs!

  by Roadbed Guy on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 10:48:41 AM PDT

  •  The problem is

    that to support this parasitic economy, the US has turned into an imperial power.  This is the source of our wars now, attempting to control the resources belonging to other countries, to feed the greedy maw of our consumers at lower and lower prices.

    We make war to control the resources we need to make war.  This cycle can only spiral downward.

    We are the ROman Empire now, enslaving the world to supply bread and circuses to our enemployed proletariat.

    by curmudgiana on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 11:39:34 AM PDT

    •  Corporate welfare needs to end immediately

      I can't be the only one tired of hearing about the record profits corporations are amassing and just sitting on to collect interest.

      Why isn't anyone talking about nationalizing these profits so they can be used to purchase items that benefit the public good? Why not use this funding to repair our crumbling roads, shoddy electrical grid, stagnating water treatment systems, and failing public schools?

      What good is that money doing sitting there collecting interest for a bunch of fatcats and their cronies so they can add another wing to their mansions? What is 'good' or 'moral' about that?

      by bluewolverine on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 11:47:23 AM PDT

    •  I have long thought so,

      we are the Roman Empire. Ouch! Put down the mirror. It saddens me. However, our military is not allowed to fight as the Romans did. Does it matter though, as you have so ably described the current situation, if it remains uncorrected it seems we will end the same way, only much sooner. You are so right, how can we live as a nation, if we do not make anything. I like what bluewolverine said too.

      by JayReuben on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 12:00:39 PM PDT

    •  Yeah OK exactly

      If anything can break us out of this cycle, in the long run the pain is worth the gain ?

      by Roadbed Guy on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 01:04:34 PM PDT

•  Exactly!

  The Founding Fathers of the EU recognised that by making countries inter-dependant on the primary war materials (initially coal and steel), war between them becomes impossible.

  In many ways, the economic interdependence of the USA and China is the best defense for the USA as without the trade, China cannot afford the imported food it needs.

  by londonbear on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 10:57:40 AM PDT

•  Not only machinery but people.,,

  there is a whole generation that knows how to do nothing more than make lattes and flip burgers.

  by irate on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 11:14:27 AM PDT

•  a good reference for your argument can be

  found here - with the demise of bethlehem steel.

  when the bushies and corporate profiteers started looking for cheaper product and higher profits, american interests were not of concern.

  this country (translate: politicians) has allowed the massive selloff of our industries, we lost the ability to be self sufficient.

  we need to stress that the failed policies of the reagan, bush pere and bush fil admins to turn america into a "service" economy (at the enrichment of their corporate donors) has made america extremely vulnerable and incapable of self-sustenance.

  we are not only incapable of making anything now, we are incapable of meeting our nation's needs in the future, as the "corporate bankruptcies" have allowed the sell-off of the industrial infrastructure to the nations taking over those activities.

  when pillowtex (formerly, cannon mills) ended up bankrupt, they sold off the machinery that ran the mills in kannapolis to china.  i apologize for the abrupt ending of this post - have to leave unexpectedly, but if anyone wants the links, i'll find them later for you - quick perusal has too many for me to find the original sale info - but will be back later to find it.

  by edrie on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 11:16:21 AM PDT

•  We could restart

  our entire manufacturing industry by passing a law that says the Federal Gov. must buy all military goods from within the USA. We are outsourcing our uniforms, some of our aircraft, ammunitions, etc. Bring all that money back home and creat decent jobs.

  by OneCrankyDom on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 11:28:25 AM PDT

  •  But that means paying those filthy plebes!

    God forbid - they might save that money up for a set of golf clubs and compete with us for tee times at the country club!

    /snark

    by bluewolverine on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 11:49:17 AM PDT

•  If we were to go to war with China ...

  we wouldn't last more than a few weeks, as we wouldn't be able to replace all the high-tech parts our army, navy, and air force is dependent upon.

  by Jon Meltzer on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 12:08:11 PM PDT

  •  That's precisely the problem

    by curmudgiana on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 12:17:48 PM PDT

    •  That has been my concern

      For several years now.  I'm in Ohio, and job losses have really hit hard. Factory jobs. Nearby steel mill jobs. After 9/11, I'd look out at the sky and think, "If we had to gear up production like in WW2, how long would it take? Could we even do it?"

      Now that's homeland insecurity for you.

      by Margot on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 09:38:53 PM PDT

•  There is a fundamental contradiction

  at the heart of the economy between the consumer and the producer.  The American consumer increasingly cannot afford to buy the output of the American worker.  And the worker is always the weaker party, because every worker is also a consumer.

  The consumer presses for lower and lower prices, the worker for higher and higher wages.  The advantage of greater productivity can only go so far.  The consumer wins, the worker loses, the job of producing goes overseas to workers who will produce for less.  The workers here find themselves in jobs that pay less and less, so that the pressure for lower-priced goods only increases.

  The problem is exacerbated by taxes that go to support things like a huge military - which other countries do not have to do, so that we are at a competitive disadvantage with them.  This is the cost of being the world's only superpower.

  by curmudgiana on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 12:24:50 PM PDT

•  OK, so how do we fix this?

  With all due respect, curmudgiana, you have presented a well-reasoned exposition of the problem with no suggestion of a solution.  I agree with your findings, yet without any ideas as to how we fix this it's just pointless grumbling.

  Enforcing environmental and worker-protection laws against our trade partners (e.g. China) is a good start, for example.  Do you have specific suggestions for how we might deal with this situation?

  -AG

  by AlphaGeek on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 10:01:38 PM PDT

  •  A human right index weighted tarrif

    For a start, we can ditch the most-favored-nation status China enjoys.

    One solution I've been toying with that would be a general tarrif on all goods for a particular country based on that country's treatment of workers, its social institutions, its level of authoritarian government, and so on. That arrangement will allow us to reap some of the theoretical benefits of free trade without allowing countries to undercut us with what amounts to slave labor.

    The only way to compete with a country like China right now is to lower our working standards to match theirs, and I don't think we're prepared to do that.

    by quotemstr on Sat Oct 14, 2006 at 11:11:23 PM PDT

  •  the first step towards solving a problem

    is to define it accurately.

    You know what happens when people try to solve a problem without doing this first.

    Changes in the tax laws which would force long-term thinking on the part of C-level people might be a good idea. For instance, payment of 50% of options / bonuses earned by C-level people delayed several years made contingent on future performance of the company might have an interesting impact on corporate decisionmaking.

    A good part of the shipping of various corporate functions overseas is a blind attempt to cut labor rates, even if the result will be to eliminate important parts of the human database, i.e. the people who know what the company is supposed to be doing and how the products/services work. Worse, this essentially trains future foriegn competitors and their potential employees.

    The C-level people know that this will bite their company in the future, but by that time, they'll have cashed out. But they don't care. If they know that a significant part of their compensation depends on what shape the company is based on a 5 year horizon, they'll be much more careful about cutting costs at the expense of future corporate growth and selecting their replacements.

    The first example I know of where company offshoring of critical functions really bit them in the ass is the former US brand Schwinn Bicycle some years ago, who offshored R&D and manufacturing and eventually got bought out cheaply by their offshorer. (Taiwan, I think)

    Other than that, going through tax codes and eliminating every subsidy towards offshoring would be a good idea.

    Requiring that some or all government contracts be awarded only to companies where the work will be performed in America is another possibility.

    Requiring that companies making products for the American market comply with American labor and environmental laws. This isn't imposing our law on them, if companies don't want to do this, they don't have to sell their products here.

    by alizard on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 02:15:25 AM PDT

  •  I don't believe

    in the rush to DO SOMETHING about a perceived problem without thorough analysis.  This is what Congress typically does, which is the best way to invoke the Demon of Unintended Consequences and waste a lot of money in the process.  There are too many factors that legislation simply can't control.

    In the long run, I believe that globalization, no matter how undesirable or otherwise, is inevitable.  The economy is global, and this is a monster that isn't going back into the bottle.

    We can't return to a closed, self-sufficient economy - not that we ever had one - and even if it were possible the cost would be profound, in terms of the standard of living.  It must be accepted that the current situation is driven by the consumer, always demanding the lowest price for goods.  This is not going to change.

    But again in the long run, I think we have to accept that the US is in decline, will continue to decline, and there is no alternative.  Our time at the top has come and gone.

    The Neocons like to talk about Creative Destruction without understanding the full implications of this process.  We can not impose it on the rest of the world and remain immune to it ourselves.  The US economy is unsustainable.  We can't continue forever to consume and not produce.  What will happen with globalization - what is happening now - is the decline of our standard of living relative to the rest of the world, as it rises.  A leveling process is taking place.  The top falls, the bottom rises to the mean.

    What I fear more than anything is that the US is attempting to fight the inevitable decline by becoming an imperial power - which it is, in many ways already - seizing control over the world's resources and enslaving its workers by military force.  This is current neocon policy in the case of oil, and we see the consequences, which are entirely counterproductive.  This policy is doomed, not only to failure but to catastophic failure.

    WWII was the last great war of armies.  The US military has become the victim of its own success by ensuring that no other nation can raise an army capable of defeating ours.  The result, as we can see in the history of the last 50 years, is that warfare has become asymmetric, and in this, we are at a distinct disadvantage.  We can destroy, but we can not win.

    by curmudgiana on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 08:21:48 AM PDT

•  A winning plan for Democrats after the election

  "Infrastructure improvement" is an issue easily understood by people, it is a national security issue, and it creates jobs.  The problem is, there's no money for it ... all poured out on the pavements of Iraq.  Still, lack of money hasn't stopped them yet.

  by Pellice on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 02:50:06 AM PDT

•  Fear Motivates Voters

  I've been thinking about this very issue for years now. What if the US was to engage in a WW conflict on the level of WWII? Would we be able to build and maintain the war machine? Do we even have the workers with required skills to teach other workers, to build planes, tanks, ammo, uniforms, small arms, etc? I doubt it.  Do we have the capcity to make Steel? Are there any American companies who still make Ball Bearings? All modern machinery is dependent on Ball Bearings.

  I'll bet we've worn out most of our tanks, trucks and humvees in Iraq. How long would it take to replace those? How much money?

  This is a perfect issue to run on.

  George W. Bush and the Republican controlled Congress has sold out our country by eliminating the American Industry required to build and maintain our military defense. They have made it impossible for us to truly defend ourselves in a World War.

  by SgtFury on Sun Oct 15, 2006 at 08:23:47 AM PDT

•  Wish

  I had discovered you in time to recommend this post. I've sort of been on sabbatical from Kos, and not keeping up.

  It's nice to know I'm not the only Cassandra on this theme.

  by The Reverend and Doctor Omed on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 10:59:55 AM PDT

  •  Need a new org:

    Prophets of Doom

    by curmudgiana on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 11:25:44 AM PDT