FirmhandKY
Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael
Firmhand,
quote:
1. That debt is only partly governmental. Do you have any figures to quantify this?
2. Policies were put into place to allow people to qualify for vastly more expensive homes ... : Other than lower interest rates, what "policies" do you mean?
3. here is no new industry that we are world leaders in,: I don't agree, but I'd have to do a little research before making any claims. However, off-hand, the industries of the future are more high tech, more informationally related, and less steel and mortar related than previously. I think the medical field, nano-technology and information technologies are still pretty strong US fields.
4. we were not reinvesting in infrastructure or education: You have figures to back these claims up?
5. or even on setting ourselves up to deal with the coming energy crunch and the technology that would make us world leaders again. : Again, do you have specifics
1. Consumer debt levels
2.Allowing interest only and other "creative" paper.
3.China and India are working hard at eating our lunch
4.Name what infrastructure has been rebuilt or built?
5.The point is there ARE no specifics (unless you look back to Carter who had one in place till Raygun dismantled it)
Thank you for the response.
However, it's insufficiently detailed to have a fact-based discussion.
Over all, it's an interesting theory. From what I understand of what you have written, you are saying that:
The Federal dept, combined with excessively high consumer dept (made worse by even more debt made when the apparent equity in many homes disappears due to the possible collapse of the housing market), combined with increased international competition and a deteriorating US infrastructure will lead to a US economic collapse?
And this will be entirely Bush's fault?
That is an interesting theory, but without a detailed analysis of the separate issues, I'm not sure it's possible to have a reasoned debate.
You haven't supported this thesis with anything approaching enough detail for me to justify defending, or denying it. Not that I necessarily blame you, as each of the sub-areas you mention are fraught with differences of opinion as to their meaning, and their affect on the overall economy, especially in conjunction with the other areas.
Getting into such a detailed discussion might be more appropriate for an economic textbook.
However, there are a few areas relating to the US's economy and emerging technologies to which I would draw your attention:
The first is a National Science Foundation Study in 2006 titled Science and Engineering Indicators (SEI), and in particular, Chapter Six Industry, Technology, and the Global Marketplace. Some excerpts:
High-technology manufacturing industries are key contributors to economic growth in the United States and around the world.
- The global market for high-technology goods is growing faster than that for other manufactured goods.
- Over the past 24 years (1980–2003), world output by high-technology manufacturing industries grew at an inflation-adjusted average annual rate of 6.4%. Output by other manufacturing industries grew at just 2.4%.
- The European Union (EU) had the world's largest high-technology manufacturing sector between 1980 and 1995.
- Beginning in 1996 and for each year thereafter, U.S. high-technology manufacturers generated more domestic production (value added) than the EU or any other single country. Estimates for 2003 show U.S. high-technology industry accounting for more than 40% of global value added, the EU for about 18%, and Japan for about 12%.
From 1980 through 2003, market competitiveness of individual U.S. high-technology industries varied, although each sector maintained strong market positions.
- In 1998, U.S. manufacturers replaced Japanese manufacturers as the leading producers of communication equipment and have retained that position. In 2003, the United States accounted for nearly 51% of world production (value added), Japan for 16%, and the EU for 9%.
- In 1997, U.S. manufacturers also replaced Japanese manufacturers as the leading producers of office and computer machinery; by 2003, U.S. manufacturers accounted for an estimated 40% of global production while China's industry secured second place at 26%, with the EU in third place at 9%.
- The U.S. aerospace industry has long maintained a leading if not dominant position in the global marketplace. In recent years however, the aerospace industry's manufacturing share has fallen more than any other U.S. industry. U.S. industry share of global aerospace production is estimated to have fallen to about 35% in 2003. At its highest level in 1985, U.S. aerospace accounted for 57% of global production.
- The EU and the United States were the leading producers of drugs and medicines in the world market for the entire 24-year period examined, each accounting for about 32% of global production in both 2002 and 2003.
- The EU and the United States were also the leading producers of scientific instruments. Led by Germany and France, the EU accounted for an estimated 38% of global production in 2003, while the U.S. share was nearly 35%.
Knowledge-intensive service industries are key contributors to service-sector growth around the world. - Global sales in knowledge-intensive service industries rose every year from 1980 through 2003 and exceeded $14 trillion in 2003.
- The United States was the leading provider of knowledge-intensive services, responsible for about one-third of world revenue totals during the 24-year period examined.
- Business services, which includes computer and data processing and research and engineering services, is the largest of the five service industries, accounting for 35% of global knowledge-intensive revenues in 2003.
- Business-service industries in the EU and United States are close in size and the most prominent in the world; together they account for more than 70% of services provided worldwide. Japan ranked a distant third at about 12%.
The second area is the emerging industry of nanotechnology. Part of a abstract of a 2005 study by Frost and Sullivan:
This Frost & Sullivan research service presents a broad outline of the current U.S. nanotechnology industry, highlighting major market and financial trends with an emphasis on five growth segments: chemicals & materials, healthcare & biotech, electronics & computers, tools & equipment, and defense & security. It also provides a comprehensive financial and valuation analysis of the leading U.S. nanotechnology companies.
...
Nanotechnology has the potential to make substantial improvements in the general quality of life and is, therefore, drawing the attention of entrepreneurs and investors around the globe. Recent product launches, such as transparent sun blocks, stain-free fabrics, golf balls designed to fly straight, and nick-proof trims on hummers, clearly demonstrate the enormous potential of the technology to provide superior medical treatments, better production processes, faster computers, and smaller memory devices.
With many more nanotech-based products presently in their developmental stage and expected to be launched within the next few years, the nanotechnology industry is currently in the late introduction or early growth phase and, hence, faces numerous challenges.
...
The constant search for better products and processes is spreading the application of nanotechnology across various industries. In the healthcare & biotech sector, research is driven by the need to improve medical equipment, to find better drug delivery systems, and by the search for medical cures. Overall, the promise of a better quality of life and the potential for lucrative returns are ensuring heavy investments and innovation in this relatively new technology.
The nanotechnology industry can be compared to the stage of the information technology (IT) industry in the early to mid 1990s. While the sector holds high potential for future growth, its present stage is characterized by numerous small market participants, lack of clarity about the final product, absence of clearly defined structure, low profit margins, and high research and operational expenses.
"Although the chemicals & materials market was the first to adopt nanotechnology, the focus now seems to have shifted to the healthcare & biotech sector," says the analyst. "Much of the miniaturization of computer chips to date has involved nanoscience, and it is expected that products for industry applications and defense & security applications are likely to be the first to enter the marketplace."
And from a 2003 summary of the projected market for nano by a German firm:
Nanotechnology is a cross-section technology and will change or redefine all known technologies and markets in the 21.century. It will create new applications and processes and change the branches. On a short-term basis, nanotechnology will complement and change life science, pharma, diagnostic, medicine technology, food, environmental technology, water, energy, electroics, mechanical engineering and so on. The world markets for pure nanotech products only come to a few billions US$, markets and products using nanotech are already many times bigger. The global growth rates will, according to branch and application, amount to 8-21% p.a. in the next 15 years.
Their projections for the global nano market by 2010 is about $500 billion by 2010, and almost doubling in the next five years after that. Half or more of all that market and the companies supplying nano are US.
And this is just the basic nano percursers, and not necessarily the products that nano is incorporated into.
I mention these things because of the common method of extrapolating the future from the past in a linear manner. I don't think that is any longer a valid method with today's technologies, and especially with such a major technology shift that is occuring with the introduction of nanotechnology.
This is a technology that will change the entire basis of our economy, more so even than computers have over the last 20 years or so. And the US is uniquely situated to take advantage of it in a way that few other nations are.
It doesn't mean there aren't possible problems, and that other nations won't be competing fiercely. But, as in many industries, the simple mass and convergences available in the US are difficult to overcome.
As well, as the technology matures, it will make just about all current industrial infrastructure and processes obsolete. So even if US isn't "building new infrastructure" right now (which is an unproven assumption), I'm not really sure it will matter in the longer term.
Overall, while it's possible that a short-term economic bubble may be in the making due to a housing problem, I'm not convinced that the US debt (federal and consumer) is high enough to be considered dangerous, even with a burst house bubble - and I'm not sure it matters anyway.
Just my thoughts, however.
FirmKY
_____________________________
Some people are just idiots.
|
RE: UN & NATO - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread