Decline of the American Empire

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Decline of the American Empire

By Jon Taplin - August 1, 2009, 12:44PM

If ever we needed evidence of the Cost of Empire, Floyd Norris's scary chart of Durable Goods Production from the U.S. Economy is it.

0801-biz-webcharts.gif


We have so hollowed out our industrial plant that the only thing we are now producing is weapons of war. The great British Historian Arnold Toynbee's theory about the decline of the Roman Empire has lessons for our current age.

The economy of the Empire was basically a Raubwirtschaft or plunder economy based on looting existing resources rather than producing anything new. The Empire relied on booty from conquered territories (this source of revenue ending, of course, with the end of Roman territorial expansion) or on a pattern of tax collection that drove small-scale farmers into destitution (and onto a dole that required even more exactions upon those who could not escape taxation), or into dependency upon a landed ?lite exempt from taxation. With the cessation of tribute from conquered territories, the full cost of their military machine had to be borne by the citizenry.

This I know. We cannot continue on this course of decline. While many of the elite escape taxation with their brilliant "tax shelter" accountants, the middle class (Rome's "small scale farmers") are being asked to shoulder the economic burden of empire.

Shortly after the election President Obama made it clear that the chokehold of the Military Industrial Complex over our economy was not going to change on his watch--"To ensure prosperity here at home and peace abroad, we all share the belief we have to maintain the strongest military on the planet." After all, with 4% of the world's people why shouldn't we spend 45% of the world's military spending?

While Obama makes symbolic cuts in the Military budget, the House threw in 550 new earmarks into a $636 Billion Military Budget. Lyndon Johnson thought we could have both Guns and Butter, but he was wrong. Both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were afraid to take on the Military Industrial Complex that the Republicans have always favored. Eisenhower was right that continuing on this disastrous course is a form of generational theft. According to Catherine Lutz the U.S. Military has "909 military facilities in 46 countries and territories." This is truly insane. We need to bring the personnel on these bases home and start selling off the precious foreign real estate to help liquidate our massive debt.

I have only one question--Where is the national politician with the courage to say we no longer have to act as the unpaid policeman of the world?
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Tramp... I ordered this today. If you haven't read it yet, check it out on Amazon. It looks very good.

51u5nfbxdjL._SL1000_.jpg
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
Tramp... I ordered this today. If you haven't read it yet, check it out on Amazon. It looks very good.

51u5nfbxdjL._SL1000_.jpg

Thanks. I will go pick this up. I've read his three books on Blowback. Nice to see another new piece of work from him. Now I can't wait to hit the bookstore tomorrow!
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
Eisenhower was right that continuing on this disastrous course is a form of generational theft.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8y06NSBBRtY?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8y06NSBBRtY?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
 

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
57
In the shadows
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xhZk8ronces?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xhZk8ronces?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
 

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
Dec 6, 2001
9,418
1,054
113
Kansas City area for who knows how long....
A very misleading chart--aren't you disturbed by it's Y-axis mischief?

And still after even all that it doesn't support the conclusion Talpin makes...

Ike is right, of course. The "spiritual" bit he added is real nice! But never forget that Ralph Williams and Malcolm Moos originally wrote "military-industrial-congressional complex". Ike left out the equally important and essential "congressional" part 'cause he didn't wanna embarrass or upset congressmen in attendance at his farewell speech.
 

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
Dec 6, 2001
9,418
1,054
113
Kansas City area for who knows how long....
ok, have little bit of time this morning for an expanded response. A friend asked about it and I showed him some websites.

The proper name of the above chart would be:

"Since 2000: Consistent growth in weapons manufacture, fluctuations in nonmilitary manufacturing"

US economy was booming in 2000, then decline, and then bad recession hit and economy shrunk. But we still hadda fund and fight two wars. Not surprising military manufacturing grew as non-military shrunk...a similar graph for last 100 years and our current state show up like other similar past blips.

with that y-axis on chart the military could have shipped/ordered 2 trucks in 2000, then 5 trucks in 2009, while civilian production of trucks slipped from 2 million to 1.5 million.

The chart sez nothing about the relative sizes of the military and nonmilitary categories. When you just glance at the chart, or study it bereft of statistical understanding, you think "Jeeze, our entire economy is almost nothing but military production of late!"

Statistics are fun to use, but ya gotta learn how to use them properly.

Whenever someone cites statistical percent changes, you gotta have some chart, explanation, or presentation, of the amplitude of those changes in context in order to judge their significance.

In the original NY Times article the graph appeared (view here) we read that "the military now takes about 8 percent of all durable goods, up from 3 percent in 2000." That is an increase I sure don't like, even due to 2 wars and slump in private sector---we have a ridiculous amount of bases in US and around the world, wasteful weapon systems,etc---BUT eight percent is a long way from claiming US military production is "the only thing we are now producing." as Talpin sez. :mj07: 8% is most certainly not anywhere close to "the only thing" :mj07:


The US "by far remains the world's leading manufacturer" we read in report here. The real value of U.S. manufacturing output today is 4 times the output of 1950s, greater than twice what it was in 1980.

One of the big reasons military is separated from non-military in these data series is precisely due to short term spurts that can distort the picture and mislead. Study the issue here.


And, really, invoking Toynbee's Raubwirtschaft to drag in some meretricious highschool history analogy with the decline of the Roman Empire! That'd be like a pagan/anti church-type citing Gibbons (Rome fell due to citizens turning into weak, limp-wristed Christians). Except Toynbee was never the historian Gibbons was... There's been a lot of superior analysis and original research (philological, archeological, etc) in the last 50 years which has contributed much to our understanding of the fall of the Western Empire. Here are the best most recent books, with some discussion of their conclusions in these links.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
You raise some good points about the Norris chart Terryray. But I think what is important to take away from it (if nothing else) is how important it is to monitor our military vs. non-military production (and consumption) of goods. The consequences of an economy inordinately driven by military production and consumption would be calamitous.
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
You've got a few problems with your facts, terryray. Problems like this -

The real value of U.S. manufacturing output today is 4 times the output of 1950s, greater than twice what it was in 1980.

While that may be strictly true, your "manufacturing" includes industries like petroleum and steel which are primarily commodities based.

Our manufacturing problem is loss of jobs, as seen here -

saupload_mfg.jpg


And it isn't just

men's dress shirts that retail for $12, microwave ovens that retail for $69, and boom boxes that retail for less than half that price to low-cost developing countries.

as Sirkin would like us to believe.

It's automobiles, heavy machinery, machine tools, wind and solar power equipment and on and on.

We have exported far too many of our good paying jobs.

You little :mj07: are cute, but your "facts" are not so cute.
 

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
Dec 6, 2001
9,418
1,054
113
Kansas City area for who knows how long....
You raise some good points about the Norris chart Terryray. But I think what is important to take away from it (if nothing else) is how important it is to monitor our military vs. non-military production (and consumption) of goods. The consequences of an economy inordinately driven by military production and consumption would be calamitous.

I'd say the "take away" is that since non-military production has dramaticaly shrunk of late to a mere 92% -- shrinkage almost all due to temporary wars and a temporary recession -- we can be pretty serene in our confidence that the economy is never going to be in danger of being "inordinately driven by military production and consumption".

Especially considering the additional fact that nearly every advanced economy since WWII has been transformed into feminized nanny states with "free" health care, state pensions, subsidized higher education and the rest of those concerns. Plus the increasing taxes to pay for it all. This has led to a massive decrease in the military's size of the budget. The US lags behind others in this trend, for some interesting reasons, but that lag is only a couple of generations or so.


Our manufacturing problem is loss of jobs

So now, finally, after all these posts and facts and data and little :mj07: cute -- we aren't going to endure any more posts of the "we don't make anything anymore" or "hollowed-out manufacturing base" and other similar fictions?

saupload_mfg-2.jpg


farmjobs-1.jpg



If you were around in 1910, or 1925, we wouldn't hear you complaining about the destruction of farm labor, and our move into a scary post-agricultural economy?

Face it, we're now post-industrial. Is it better that yer kid gets outta highschool and cranks a wrench at the GM plant for 40 years, or goes to college and then nurses people, codes software, or designs new cancer drugs?

All these farm jobs lost to rising productivity is no proof that U.S. farming is disappearing or uncompetitive....All these manufacturing jobs lost to rising productivity is no proof that U.S. manufacturing is disappearing or uncompetitive.

Mechanization and increased productivity generates more output, but fewer jobs, in agriculture--and now, in manufacturing too. But that increasing output also leads to expanding economy, employment, rising standard of living, and wages+benefits in other sectors. We've seen this movie before, all across the world. Ho hum.

Substantial growth in productivity is the only source of sustained and widespread prosperity. You should be happy that rising productivity has destroyed millions of manufacturing jobs.
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
You should be happy that rising productivity has destroyed millions of manufacturing jobs.

You dumbshit. Rising productivity, my ass. Try to buy a USA made piece of clothing, shoe, tool, toy, electronics, camera, motorcycle, business machine, appliance...etc.

Respond no more, you cannot deal with facts.
 

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
Dec 6, 2001
9,418
1,054
113
Kansas City area for who knows how long....
Try to buy a USA made piece of clothing, shoe, tool, toy, electronics, camera, motorcycle, business machine, appliance...etc.

Both of which are beyond your ability. Go away.

is it beyond David Ricardo's ability? He reasoned why it's good that we can't buy a shoe and tool made in the US anymore. His analysis is 200 years old. I guess some folks here are just way behind the times!
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
If you were around in 1910, or 1925, we wouldn't hear you complaining about the destruction of farm labor, and our move into a scary post-agricultural economy?

Nope. the elimination of grunt labor/low wage farm jobs in favor of better paying industrial jobs was a great benefit.
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
is it beyond David Ricardo's ability? He reasoned why it's good that we can't buy a shoe and tool made in the US anymore. His analysis is 200 years old. I guess some folks here are just way behind the times!

Ricardo's work is an exercise of childish simplicity in barter situations. He includes nothing about currency exchanges, quality of life, cost of money, government interferences.

Take Ricardo's simplistic example of two men, one young, strong and vigorous, the other old and feeble. Ricardo proposes that they share tasks to the benefit of both, when the truth is that only the old man benefits, and the young man would be better off if he simply snuffed the old geezer.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
I'd say the "take away" is that since non-military production has dramaticaly shrunk of late to a mere 92% -- we can be pretty serene in our confidence that the economy is never going to be in danger of being "inordinately driven by military production and consumption".

Especially considering the additional fact that nearly every advanced economy since WWII has been transformed into feminized nanny states with "free" health care, state pensions, subsidized higher education and the rest of those concerns.

Face it, we're now post-industrial.
I agree that it's important to understand statistics, so I'll point out that you continue to confuse production with consumption.

If you don't find the fact that in 10 years time, the percent of all durable goods the military takes from our economy, has nearly tripled (from 3% to 8%), as worrisome, fine. Granted, we've been at war for 9 of the past 10 years but I do think it's something that bears close watch.

You "post industrialists" can turn a blind eye to the dangers of becoming a nation who's largest growth industry is the production of weapons, but I find it troubling and so should you.

I find your condescending attitude ("feminized nanny states") toward nations that have chosen healthcare and education over bombs and bullets, troubling as well.
 
Last edited:

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
is it beyond David Ricardo's ability? He reasoned why it's good that we can't buy a shoe and tool made in the US anymore. His analysis is 200 years old. I guess some folks here are just way behind the times!
You obviously don't work with tools. I do and I can tell you that no self-respecting mechanic would use anything but Snap-On or Craftsman hand tools, both made in the USA. Nor would any self-respecting electrical engineer or electrician use anything but Klein, Xcelite, GB, etc. hand tools, again... all made in the USA.

Don't be so hard on yourself for being so far behind the times Terryray. The party that caters to your value system is just as far behind and getting farther all the time. ;)
 
Last edited:

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
57
In the shadows
You obviously don't work with tools. I do and I can tell you that no self-respecting mechanic would use anything but Snap-On or Craftsman hand tools, both made in the USA. Nor would any self-respecting electrical engineer or electrician use anything but Klein, Xcelite, GB, etc. hand tools, again... all made in the USA.

;)

That's all I hace in my shop and DeWalt power tools. However I do have a Honda Generator and Toyota forklift, I have so much shit in there I can't remember the make of each piece of equipment.
Chainsaws, Leaf Blowers, Lawn Mower, Hedge Trimmer... but... I don't use BP, I don't even know if there is one in town?
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
That's all I hace in my shop and DeWalt power tools. However I do have a Honda Generator and Toyota forklift, I have so much shit in there I can't remember the make of each piece of equipment.
Chainsaws, Leaf Blowers, Lawn Mower, Hedge Trimmer... but... I don't use BP, I don't even know if there is one in town?
Yeah, power tools are a mixed bag. I have a mix of Bosch (German), Makita (Japanese), De Walt (American), Ridgid (American) and Ryobi (Japanese). Same with lawn tools - Honda (Japanese), Troy-Built (American) and Cub-Cadet (American). But I refuse to buy anything but American made hand tools. They're simply the best.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top