US Election 2016, part II

[Namutree]

 

It's not. Illegals are costing us hundreds of billions, not to mention all the crime and social problems. You can't end poverty while you keep importing it.

 

 

To be honest imo the big travesty is the amount the US spends on defense and the military.

 

Realistically speaking, no one in their right mind would ever attack the USA. First off, we have ****ing nukes. Second, we live in the middle of ****ing nowhere, meaning anyone that attacks the USA has logistics issues with fuel and food and supply lines. Third, because we live in the middle of ****ing nowhere, ALL our neighbors would probably prefer status quo over a questionable and unpredictable change in politics; attacking the USA is likely to also function as an attack on Canada, Mexico, and the bulk of South America. Fourth, even in the face of a country such as Russia that CAN go toe-to-toe with our firepower, Russia would absolutely refrain from attacking us because of #1 and #2. Even if for some reason we agree to a war without nukes, the attacking nation would automatically lose due to the strain of resources and supply lines, thus both Russia and the USA would opt to fight on their home turf.

 

The idea of anyone in their right mind attempting to attack the USA, yet despite this the amount that the USA spends on defense is absolutely insane. I personally hold the stance that yes, USA should stop playing world police force, let everyone fend for themselves (I mean wtf people bitch at the USA for intervening in foreign wars anyways), and leave the defense budget strictly for defense. Freeing up those funds would do worlds to help EVERY other aspect of the USA, from healthcare to study costs to the economy. (though of course the government would want to develop a plan to create new jobs in advance as understandably a loss of spending also means a loss of jobs) I guess my point is that if we REALLY wanna save money, target the US military and the richest 1%. Anything else is legit peanuts compared to these two.

 

While you're 100% right that we spend way too much on the military. The amount we spend on other stuff is not, "peanuts". WoD still has a valid point.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Namutree

[Wrath of Dagon]

I don't think we'd survive as the richest global weakling. Like it or not, people are going to want our stuff. But Trump is right, other countries should contribute a lot more to their own defense, we shouldn't be carrying them.

[Longknife]

 

 

It's not. Illegals are costing us hundreds of billions, not to mention all the crime and social problems. You can't end poverty while you keep importing it.

 

 

To be honest imo the big travesty is the amount the US spends on defense and the military.

 

Realistically speaking, no one in their right mind would ever attack the USA. First off, we have ****ing nukes. Second, we live in the middle of ****ing nowhere, meaning anyone that attacks the USA has logistics issues with fuel and food and supply lines. Third, because we live in the middle of ****ing nowhere, ALL our neighbors would probably prefer status quo over a questionable and unpredictable change in politics; attacking the USA is likely to also function as an attack on Canada, Mexico, and the bulk of South America. Fourth, even in the face of a country such as Russia that CAN go toe-to-toe with our firepower, Russia would absolutely refrain from attacking us because of #1 and #2. Even if for some reason we agree to a war without nukes, the attacking nation would automatically lose due to the strain of resources and supply lines, thus both Russia and the USA would opt to fight on their home turf.

 

The idea of anyone in their right mind attempting to attack the USA, yet despite this the amount that the USA spends on defense is absolutely insane. I personally hold the stance that yes, USA should stop playing world police force, let everyone fend for themselves (I mean wtf people bitch at the USA for intervening in foreign wars anyways), and leave the defense budget strictly for defense. Freeing up those funds would do worlds to help EVERY other aspect of the USA, from healthcare to study costs to the economy. (though of course the government would want to develop a plan to create new jobs in advance as understandably a loss of spending also means a loss of jobs) I guess my point is that if we REALLY wanna save money, target the US military and the richest 1%. Anything else is legit peanuts compared to these two.

 

While you're 100% right that we spend way too much on the military. The amount we spend on other stuff is not, "peanuts". WoD still has a valid point.

 

 

It would be a fallacy to claim that his claims are invalid simply due to scale, and no I'm not saying that. I merely wanted to interject and throw that out there because almost repeatedly, I see arguments made about illegal immigrants, health care, and a number of other issues with the argument being "would could save millions if...," and I always find it insanely odd that the military defense budget does dwarf all others in terms of costs, yet I rarely see it named as something we should cut back on.

 

 

I don't think we'd survive as the richest global weakling. Like it or not, people are going to want our stuff.

 

 

Housing the second largest nuclear bomb stockpile and more than enough to blow up the planet four times over is a far cry from "the richest weakling."

 

By all means keep the nukes, MAD had a point. And by all means, build a missle defense system. But all these tanks and troops and aircrafts and aircraft carriers...? Dude we have nukes, our economy offers far more benefits if you trade with us rather than fight us and we live in the middle of nowhere, I'm pretty sure no one wants to **** with us. Germany's military is pretty weaksauce and yet both Russia and USA would rather offer Germany sexual favors than overrun it, and you know why? Because Germany is an economic powerhouse with a lot to offer. USA is an even larger economy with nukes, a tactically advantageous global location, a number of allies and missle defense systems. Again, no one in their right mind is gonna declare war on the USA. The last nation that tried got bombed so hard they've spent the last 70 years completely incapable of making a cartoon with an original plot that doesn't rely on giant killer robots and fan service for sales. No one would dare touch us if they value the quality of their cartoons.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Longknife

[Namutree]

I don't think we'd survive as the richest global weakling. 

There can be a balance you know. It's not like we need to from spending more on military than the rest of the world combined straight to spending barely anything at all.

 

I don't see for example, why we need things like the F35 Joint Strike Fighter. It costed like $400,000,000, and they don't even work for crap. Oh, and we barely even have any of them. It's friggin' stupid.

 

We need to stop the BS. No more blank checks for idiotic pet programs in the military.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Namutree

[Wrath of Dagon]

Housing the second largest nuclear bomb stockpile and more than enough to blow up the planet four times over is a far cry from "the richest weakling."

 

By all means keep the nukes, MAD had a point. And by all means, build a missle defense system. But all these tanks and troops and aircrafts and aircraft carriers...? Dude we have nukes, our economy offers far more benefits if you trade with us rather than fight us and we live in the middle of nowhere, I'm pretty sure no one wants to **** with us. Germany's military is pretty weaksauce and yet both Russia and USA would rather offer Germany sexual favors than overrun it, and you know why? Because Germany is an economic powerhouse with a lot to offer. USA is an even larger economy with nukes, a tactically advantageous global location, a number of allies and missle defense systems. Again, no one in their right mind is gonna declare war on the USA. The last nation that tried got bombed so hard they've spent the last 70 years completely incapable of making a cartoon with an original plot that doesn't rely on giant killer robots and fan service for sales. No one would dare touch us if they value the quality of their cartoons.

What you're saying basically is whatever designs Russia or China or Iran or IS have, we wouldn't interfere, because we couldn't. But I have to believe eventually whatever evils they unleash would get back to us one way or the other, you can see the European refugee crisis as an example. Plus we have global investments and trade we have to protect, unless you're willing to give all that up and just isolate ourselves from the rest of the world.

 

 

 

I don't think we'd survive as the richest global weakling.

There can be a balance you know. It's not like we need to from spending more on military than the rest of the world combined straight to spending barely anything at all.

 

I don't see for example, why we need things like the F35 Joint Strike Fighter. It costed like $400,000,000, and they don't even work. It's friggin' stupid.

 

We need to stop the BS. No more blank checks for idiotic pet programs in the military.

 

I don't disagree with you. Our military procurement is run by the fox in the henhouse, it's ridiculous the vast amounts of money they waste. And of course we can use (or not use) our military in a much more judicious way as well. All hard problems though.

[Longknife]

 

Housing the second largest nuclear bomb stockpile and more than enough to blow up the planet four times over is a far cry from "the richest weakling."

 

By all means keep the nukes, MAD had a point. And by all means, build a missle defense system. But all these tanks and troops and aircrafts and aircraft carriers...? Dude we have nukes, our economy offers far more benefits if you trade with us rather than fight us and we live in the middle of nowhere, I'm pretty sure no one wants to **** with us. Germany's military is pretty weaksauce and yet both Russia and USA would rather offer Germany sexual favors than overrun it, and you know why? Because Germany is an economic powerhouse with a lot to offer. USA is an even larger economy with nukes, a tactically advantageous global location, a number of allies and missle defense systems. Again, no one in their right mind is gonna declare war on the USA. The last nation that tried got bombed so hard they've spent the last 70 years completely incapable of making a cartoon with an original plot that doesn't rely on giant killer robots and fan service for sales. No one would dare touch us if they value the quality of their cartoons.

What you're saying basically is whatever designs Russia or China or Iran or IS have, we wouldn't interfere, because we couldn't. But I have to believe eventually whatever evils they unleash would get back to us one way or the other, you can see the European refugee crisis as an example. Plus we have global investments and trade we have to protect, unless you're willing to give all that up and just isolate ourselves from the rest of the world.

 

 

 

I don't think we'd survive as the richest global weakling.

There can be a balance you know. It's not like we need to from spending more on military than the rest of the world combined straight to spending barely anything at all.

 

I don't see for example, why we need things like the F35 Joint Strike Fighter. It costed like $400,000,000, and they don't even work. It's friggin' stupid.

 

We need to stop the BS. No more blank checks for idiotic pet programs in the military.

 

I don't disagree with you. Our military procurement is run by the fox in the henhouse, it's ridiculous the vast amounts of money they waste. And of course we can use (or not use) our military in a much more judicious way as well. All hard problems though.

 

 

 

No, I'm saying if Russia bullies Georgia (not the state) or the Middle East is ripping itself apart again, why do we care? The only time we should care is if allies are at stake, and if they are, yeah, we should benefit from helping them beyond protecting our trade with them. The US should not be expected to single-handedly handle ISIS while Europe calmly sits there and provides pretentious little quips about what the USA could've done better and how barbaric we handled it. No, either they pay for that kind of protection, or they don't get it.

 

Attempting to police the world on the premise of "doing what's right" can result in a crusade and can be bad itself. Sitting back and doing nothing potentially leaves allies at risk. Thus, I argue the pragmatic route: pay us, then we'll protect. If there's no payment, don't bother. As things stand now, the USA loses far more on the defense budget than it gains from policing the world, thus either stop doing that or force other countries to chip in more on the defense budget.

[Malcador]

I don't think we'd survive as the richest global weakling. Like it or not, people are going to want our stuff. But Trump is right, other countries should contribute a lot more to their own defense, we shouldn't be carrying them.

Paying for influence. Is the US really carrying that many? As in the US military is there just for those nations not for any strategic interest of the US.

[Namutree]

 

No, I'm saying if Russia bullies Georgia (not the state) or the Middle East is ripping itself apart again, why do we care? The only time we should care is if allies are at stake, and if they are, yeah, we should benefit from helping them beyond protecting our trade with them. The US should not be expected to single-handedly handle ISIS while Europe calmly sits there and provides pretentious little quips about what the USA could've done better and how barbaric we handled it. No, either they pay for that kind of protection, or they don't get it.

 

Attempting to police the world on the premise of "doing what's right" can result in a crusade and can be bad itself. Sitting back and doing nothing potentially leaves allies at risk. Thus, I argue the pragmatic route: pay us, then we'll protect. If there's no payment, don't bother. As things stand now, the USA loses far more on the defense budget than it gains from policing the world, thus either stop doing that or force other countries to chip in more on the defense budget.

 

Now you're sounding like a Trump supporter. Not that it's a bad thing.

[Longknife]

 

 

No, I'm saying if Russia bullies Georgia (not the state) or the Middle East is ripping itself apart again, why do we care? The only time we should care is if allies are at stake, and if they are, yeah, we should benefit from helping them beyond protecting our trade with them. The US should not be expected to single-handedly handle ISIS while Europe calmly sits there and provides pretentious little quips about what the USA could've done better and how barbaric we handled it. No, either they pay for that kind of protection, or they don't get it.

 

Attempting to police the world on the premise of "doing what's right" can result in a crusade and can be bad itself. Sitting back and doing nothing potentially leaves allies at risk. Thus, I argue the pragmatic route: pay us, then we'll protect. If there's no payment, don't bother. As things stand now, the USA loses far more on the defense budget than it gains from policing the world, thus either stop doing that or force other countries to chip in more on the defense budget.

 

Now you're sounding like a Trump supporter. Not that it's a bad thing.

 

 

 

You know what I have? Big hands. And you know what they say about a guy with big hands.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

No, I'm saying if Russia bullies Georgia (not the state) or the Middle East is ripping itself apart again, why do we care? The only time we should care is if allies are at stake, and if they are, yeah, we should benefit from helping them beyond protecting our trade with them. The US should not be expected to single-handedly handle ISIS while Europe calmly sits there and provides pretentious little quips about what the USA could've done better and how barbaric we handled it. No, either they pay for that kind of protection, or they don't get it.

 

Attempting to police the world on the premise of "doing what's right" can result in a crusade and can be bad itself. Sitting back and doing nothing potentially leaves allies at risk. Thus, I argue the pragmatic route: pay us, then we'll protect. If there's no payment, don't bother. As things stand now, the USA loses far more on the defense budget than it gains from policing the world, thus either stop doing that or force other countries to chip in more on the defense budget.

 

Now you're sounding like a Trump supporter. Not that it's a bad thing.

 

 

You know what I have? Big hands. And you know what they say about a guy with big hands.

Big gloves?

[Zoraptor]

What you're saying basically is whatever designs Russia or China or Iran or IS have, we wouldn't interfere, because we couldn't. But I have to believe eventually whatever evils they unleash would get back to us one way or the other, you can see the European refugee crisis as an example. Plus we have global investments and trade we have to protect, unless you're willing to give all that up and just isolate ourselves from the rest of the world.

 

Eh? The European refugee crisis has literally nothing to do with China, very little to do with Russia (Turkey has had their borders closed, so any extra refugees caused by Russian involvement are either internal or going to countries other than Turkey) and almost as little to do with ISIS since the population in their entire Syrian territory even with full pre war rather than 2014 populations barely passes a million. The only thing it has to do with Iran is that they support Assad; by that measure you can add Qatar, KSA, US etc as they support the rebels (and ISIS pre name change in some cases). It also ignores the biggest factor besides the existence of the civil war itself, Turkey, a nominal ally and friend of both Europe and the US, and the refugee crisis has had almost no effect on the US either.

 

There's nothing US hard power could have done to alter things beyond the wanktastic daydreams of neocon fantasists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I'm saying if Russia bullies Georgia (not the state) or the Middle East is ripping itself apart again, why do we care? The only time we should care is if allies are at stake, and if they are, yeah, we should benefit from helping them beyond protecting our trade with them. The US should not be expected to single-handedly handle ISIS while Europe calmly sits there and provides pretentious little quips about what the USA could've done better and how barbaric we handled it. No, either they pay for that kind of protection, or they don't get it.

 

Attempting to police the world on the premise of "doing what's right" can result in a crusade and can be bad itself. Sitting back and doing nothing potentially leaves allies at risk. Thus, I argue the pragmatic route: pay us, then we'll protect. If there's no payment, don't bother. As things stand now, the USA loses far more on the defense budget than it gains from policing the world, thus either stop doing that or force other countries to chip in more on the defense budget.

 

Now you're sounding like a Trump supporter. Not that it's a bad thing.

 

 

That's a great post- and believe me, I know great posts having made so many myself. Posts like these will make the forums great again. You don't see posts like these from Crooked Bruce.

[Longknife]

 

 

 

No, I'm saying if Russia bullies Georgia (not the state) or the Middle East is ripping itself apart again, why do we care? The only time we should care is if allies are at stake, and if they are, yeah, we should benefit from helping them beyond protecting our trade with them. The US should not be expected to single-handedly handle ISIS while Europe calmly sits there and provides pretentious little quips about what the USA could've done better and how barbaric we handled it. No, either they pay for that kind of protection, or they don't get it.

 

Attempting to police the world on the premise of "doing what's right" can result in a crusade and can be bad itself. Sitting back and doing nothing potentially leaves allies at risk. Thus, I argue the pragmatic route: pay us, then we'll protect. If there's no payment, don't bother. As things stand now, the USA loses far more on the defense budget than it gains from policing the world, thus either stop doing that or force other countries to chip in more on the defense budget.

Now you're sounding like a Trump supporter. Not that it's a bad thing.

 

 

You know what I have? Big hands. And you know what they say about a guy with big hands.

Big gloves?

 

 

Yknow what's sad is that in most cases we would be accused of derailing a serious topic right about now, when really we're just quoting our presidential candidates.

 

Dear ****ing god I hope the FBI indicts Hillary.

[Oerwinde]

 

I don't think we'd survive as the richest global weakling. Like it or not, people are going to want our stuff. But Trump is right, other countries should contribute a lot more to their own defense, we shouldn't be carrying them.

Paying for influence. Is the US really carrying that many? As in the US military is there just for those nations not for any strategic interest of the US.

NATO requires member nations to spend 2% of GDP on defense, only 5 meet that, the US, Greece, Estonia, Poland, and the UK. They don't need to spend as much to stay safe because the US provides so much.

[Namutree]

 

 

I don't think we'd survive as the richest global weakling. Like it or not, people are going to want our stuff. But Trump is right, other countries should contribute a lot more to their own defense, we shouldn't be carrying them.

Paying for influence. Is the US really carrying that many? As in the US military is there just for those nations not for any strategic interest of the US.

NATO requires member nations to spend 2% of GDP on defense, only 5 meet that, the US, Greece, Estonia, Poland, and the UK. They don't need to spend as much to stay safe because the US provides so much.

 

So the other countries don't contribute their fair share?

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

What you're saying basically is whatever designs Russia or China or Iran or IS have, we wouldn't interfere, because we couldn't. But I have to believe eventually whatever evils they unleash would get back to us one way or the other, you can see the European refugee crisis as an example. Plus we have global investments and trade we have to protect, unless you're willing to give all that up and just isolate ourselves from the rest of the world.

 

Eh? The European refugee crisis has literally nothing to do with China, very little to do with Russia (Turkey has had their borders closed, so any extra refugees caused by Russian involvement are either internal or going to countries other than Turkey) and almost as little to do with ISIS since the population in their entire Syrian territory even with full pre war rather than 2014 populations barely passes a million. The only thing it has to do with Iran is that they support Assad; by that measure you can add Qatar, KSA, US etc as they support the rebels (and ISIS pre name change in some cases). It also ignores the biggest factor besides the existence of the civil war itself, Turkey, a nominal ally and friend of both Europe and the US, and the refugee crisis has had almost no effect on the US either.

 

There's nothing US hard power could have done to alter things beyond the wanktastic daydreams of neocon fantasists.

 

I was just using the refugee crisis as an example that even if we ignore the rest of the world, their problems would still make it over here in one form or another. But even in this case, since Turkey is a NATO member, presumably we would have some influence on them if we wanted to keep them from stirring things up in Syria, while if we had no conventional military forces there would be no NATO, and our influence would be a lot less.

[Agiel]

 

Why Trump and Sanders are Wrong on Free Trade

by Richard Aboulafia

 

There’s an angry political reaction against free trade in much of the world today. There are serious threats to the European Union’s system of open borders and markets, most notably in the U.K. “Brexit” referendum, to be held June 23. In the U.S., Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have both promised to renegotiate free trade agreements. Hillary Clinton, who has always advocated free trade, now opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal that she promoted as secretary of state.

 

The perception that developed economies are losing manufacturing jobs due to trade drives a lot of this reaction. Trump’s famous quip, “We don’t make things anymore,” underlines this fear. Yet it’s an irrational fear. Total U.S. manufacturing output is up 47% over the last 20 years.

 

Aerospace illustrates this strength. First, consider the very large aerospace trade surplus enjoyed by the U.S. As the chart illustrates, exports last year were 2.4 times as large as imports. The long-term trade surplus trend hasn’t changed very much over the past 10 years.

 

Large commercial jetliners are the biggest aerospace industry segment by value. Between 2006 and 2015, Boeing built 5,368 jetliners. Of these, just 1,757 went to U.S. customers, but this includes 709 for U.S.-based lessors and Boeing Business Jets, and the end users for these leased and business jets are usually domiciled in another country. In short, it’s safe to say that more than 75% of Boeing production went to export customers.

 

Looking at the composition of these jets tells an interesting story. First of all, according to the International Trade Commission (ITC) database, imports of aircraft components and parts have risen by an 11% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) in value between 2006 and 2015.

 

This has slightly outpaced Boeing deliveries, which have risen by a 9.4% CAGR by value in the same period. However, the total value of these imported parts and structures is $114.5 billion. Total Boeing aircraft production in 2006-15 came to $395.7 billion.

 

 

Also, the current trend is toward insourcing. For example, Boeing will build the wing for its 777-X in-house and just opened the new facility for this very large job. By contrast, the last Boeing twin-aisle jetliner launched, the 787 Dreamliner, had its wings outsourced to Japan. This 787 wing work helped drive a lot of the recent growth in that imported parts data.

 

It’s also important to note that there is no “race to the bottom” in this industry. Over the last 10 years, 67.2% of aircraft structures and parts imports came from the top five providers: Japan, Canada, the U.K., France and Italy, together accounting for $77 billion in parts.

 

In all, 89.4% of aircraft parts imports came from high-wage, developed economies. Only $12.1 billion in imported components, or 10.6% of the total, came from developing, non-high-wage economies (Brazil, China, India, Malaysia, Mexico and Turkey). Of these, only Mexico, basically a middle-income economy, shows anything like the kind of growth rates needed to break into the top tier of producers.

 

European aerospace trade numbers aren’t quite as transparent as U.S. numbers, but the overwhelming majority of Airbus production, like Boeing production, goes to export customers outside Europe. And those U.S. aircraft component import numbers speak to Europe’s strong OEM role at all tiers of the supply chain.

 

Clearly, legacy OEMs in the U.S. and Europe enjoy unquestioned market dominance in the aircraft business—dreams of new market entrants in China and India have come and gone for many years now. U.S. and European industry output metrics remain strong, and barriers to market entry in much of the supply chain remain extremely high. Yet, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. aerospace industry employed 611,200 workers in 2015, down from 631,800 in 2006, despite strong output growth.

 

This reflects a broader pattern. Even with that 47% increase in U.S. manufacturing output over the last 20 years, U.S. manufacturing headcount has dropped by 29% in the same period. The culprits are automation and other efficiency gains, a trend that’s quite apparent in aerospace manufacturing. But demagogue politicians and pundits can’t rail against machines—the Luddite Rebellion ended 200 years ago. Instead, trade makes a convenient scapegoat. Clearly, voters are turning against free trade for the wrong reasons.

 

And that’s a problem. There’s a fine line between “fear” and “action.” The result could mean higher tariffs on imports, followed by reciprocated tariffs among trade partners. It could mean renewed government support for competing indigenous platforms from emerging producers. And it could complicate the long trend toward customers being free to seek the best technology at the best price.

 

Given the sheer volume of aerospace imports and exports, and given the U.S. and Europe’s strong lead in the market, the current world reaction against free trade represents the very biggest geopolitical risk our industry faces today.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Agiel

[Zoraptor]

 

 

I don't think we'd survive as the richest global weakling. Like it or not, people are going to want our stuff. But Trump is right, other countries should contribute a lot more to their own defense, we shouldn't be carrying them.

Paying for influence. Is the US really carrying that many? As in the US military is there just for those nations not for any strategic interest of the US.

NATO requires member nations to spend 2% of GDP on defense, only 5 meet that, the US, Greece, Estonia, Poland, and the UK. They don't need to spend as much to stay safe because the US provides so much.

 

 

That's true, but also misleading. After all, if, say, Slovenia spends 2% of their GDP on the military they spend all of it in the NATO zone. If the US did the same they'd spend a significant proportion of it outside the North Atlantic zone, and everyone else at the 2% figure would be effectively subsidising the US within the NATO zone.

 

That's the cost of having global power/ global pretentions- you have to project your force globally and that inherently costs money above and beyond local alliances and powers such as the aforementioned Slovenia.

[Meshugger]

 

 

Why Trump and Sanders are Wrong on Free Trade

by Richard Aboulafia

 

There’s an angry political reaction against free trade in much of the world today. There are serious threats to the European Union’s system of open borders and markets, most notably in the U.K. “Brexit” referendum, to be held June 23. In the U.S., Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have both promised to renegotiate free trade agreements. Hillary Clinton, who has always advocated free trade, now opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal that she promoted as secretary of state.

 

The perception that developed economies are losing manufacturing jobs due to trade drives a lot of this reaction. Trump’s famous quip, “We don’t make things anymore,” underlines this fear. Yet it’s an irrational fear. Total U.S. manufacturing output is up 47% over the last 20 years.

 

Aerospace illustrates this strength. First, consider the very large aerospace trade surplus enjoyed by the U.S. As the chart illustrates, exports last year were 2.4 times as large as imports. The long-term trade surplus trend hasn’t changed very much over the past 10 years.

 

Large commercial jetliners are the biggest aerospace industry segment by value. Between 2006 and 2015, Boeing built 5,368 jetliners. Of these, just 1,757 went to U.S. customers, but this includes 709 for U.S.-based lessors and Boeing Business Jets, and the end users for these leased and business jets are usually domiciled in another country. In short, it’s safe to say that more than 75% of Boeing production went to export customers.

 

Looking at the composition of these jets tells an interesting story. First of all, according to the International Trade Commission (ITC) database, imports of aircraft components and parts have risen by an 11% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) in value between 2006 and 2015.

 

This has slightly outpaced Boeing deliveries, which have risen by a 9.4% CAGR by value in the same period. However, the total value of these imported parts and structures is $114.5 billion. Total Boeing aircraft production in 2006-15 came to $395.7 billion.

 

 

Also, the current trend is toward insourcing. For example, Boeing will build the wing for its 777-X in-house and just opened the new facility for this very large job. By contrast, the last Boeing twin-aisle jetliner launched, the 787 Dreamliner, had its wings outsourced to Japan. This 787 wing work helped drive a lot of the recent growth in that imported parts data.

 

It’s also important to note that there is no “race to the bottom” in this industry. Over the last 10 years, 67.2% of aircraft structures and parts imports came from the top five providers: Japan, Canada, the U.K., France and Italy, together accounting for $77 billion in parts.

 

In all, 89.4% of aircraft parts imports came from high-wage, developed economies. Only $12.1 billion in imported components, or 10.6% of the total, came from developing, non-high-wage economies (Brazil, China, India, Malaysia, Mexico and Turkey). Of these, only Mexico, basically a middle-income economy, shows anything like the kind of growth rates needed to break into the top tier of producers.

 

European aerospace trade numbers aren’t quite as transparent as U.S. numbers, but the overwhelming majority of Airbus production, like Boeing production, goes to export customers outside Europe. And those U.S. aircraft component import numbers speak to Europe’s strong OEM role at all tiers of the supply chain.

 

Clearly, legacy OEMs in the U.S. and Europe enjoy unquestioned market dominance in the aircraft business—dreams of new market entrants in China and India have come and gone for many years now. U.S. and European industry output metrics remain strong, and barriers to market entry in much of the supply chain remain extremely high. Yet, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. aerospace industry employed 611,200 workers in 2015, down from 631,800 in 2006, despite strong output growth.

 

This reflects a broader pattern. Even with that 47% increase in U.S. manufacturing output over the last 20 years, U.S. manufacturing headcount has dropped by 29% in the same period. The culprits are automation and other efficiency gains, a trend that’s quite apparent in aerospace manufacturing. But demagogue politicians and pundits can’t rail against machines—the Luddite Rebellion ended 200 years ago. Instead, trade makes a convenient scapegoat. Clearly, voters are turning against free trade for the wrong reasons.

 

And that’s a problem. There’s a fine line between “fear” and “action.” The result could mean higher tariffs on imports, followed by reciprocated tariffs among trade partners. It could mean renewed government support for competing indigenous platforms from emerging producers. And it could complicate the long trend toward customers being free to seek the best technology at the best price.

 

Given the sheer volume of aerospace imports and exports, and given the U.S. and Europe’s strong lead in the market, the current world reaction against free trade represents the very biggest geopolitical risk our industry faces today.

 

 

You know that the global capital are starting to sweat when you have the pundits entering the bargaining-phase. The next step is depression.

 

"Oh why oh why don't they see our benefits of moving labor anywhere in the world with no tariffs and no taxes? Why are they revolting about useless things like national identity, borders and cultural heritage? Those things have no value!"

 

Besides, everyone knows that the Boing 787 Dreamliner was absolute design-flop with its burning lithium-batteries because the knowledge was fragmented due to outsourcing to such a degree that there was no one left in-house with a total scope of the design process.

[Oerwinde]

Its also not so much free trade that is what people are against, its the provisions in the agreements that are forced on signatories. The TPP forcing awful US copyright law on all signatories, penalizing sovereignty, etc. Free trade deals should be about tariffs and thats it.

[Meshugger]

http://archive.is/Y92ii

 

Well, they sure told me.

[Longknife]

http://archive.is/Y92ii

 

Well, they sure told me.

 

Nevermind that, this: https://archive.is/3TFUY

 

Is he not aware how long Bernie has been in politics...?

[Meshugger]

 

http://archive.is/Y92ii

 

Well, they sure told me.

 

Nevermind that, this: https://archive.is/3TFUY

 

Is he not aware how long Bernie has been in politics...?

 

 

I have to admit that idiocy in your link is more nuanced.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

http://archive.is/Y92ii

 

Well, they sure told me.

That articleblog post could be replaced with Aids Skrillex memes and it wouldn't change that much.

 

 

Nevermind that, this: https://archive.is/3TFUY

 

Is he not aware how long Bernie has been in politics...?

No, he's just repeating the "Hillary is most experienced, Bernie is too idealistic" maymay.

[Gfted1]

Hackers invade Dems’ servers, steal entire Trump opposition file.

[Meshugger]

Hackers invade Dems’ servers, steal entire Trump opposition file.

 

I still remember a time when it was cool to hack the GOP servers.