Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Forget the Olympics—China's Victory Starts Next Year
China is set to overtake the US next year as the world's largest producer of manufactured goods, four years earlier than expected, as a result of the rapidly weakening US economy.
The great leap is revealed in forecasts for the Financial Times by Global Insight, a US economics consultancy. According to the estimates, next year China will account for 17 per cent of manufacturing value-added output of $11,783bn and the US will make 16 per cent.
Last year the US was still easily in the top slot and accounted for a fifth of the total. China was second with 13.2 per cent.
What say you, Hit & Runners? Does it matter?
|8.11.08 @ 11:34AM|#
No, it doesn't matter. Also, our (and a global) economic slowdown will reduce demand for Chinese manufactured goods, so I don't see why there's a forecast for such a big bump.
|8.11.08 @ 11:38AM|#
It does not matter that China may take the top spot, but it does matter what the US is doing to cause the slowdown.
ed|8.11.08 @ 11:44AM|#
It matters if you enjoy giving your toddlers cheap, colorful, lead-based toys (and who doesn't?) but otherwise, probably not.
Episiarch|8.11.08 @ 11:44AM|#
So we design and sell the iPhones, and they build them. Sounds good to me.
Invisible Finger|8.11.08 @ 11:47AM|#
as a result of the rapidly weakening US economy.
If the economy was weakening, it would probably make the US MORE
competitive in manufacturing, not less.
Perhaps by "weakening" the reporter meant "minimum wage laws".
|8.11.08 @ 11:49AM|#
This country is in ruins! We're doooomed!
We don't make anything here, anymore! Haven't you
heard? We're completely at the mercy of rapacious evil corporations
who have shipped all the good jobs overseas!
GAAAAAAHHHH!
Guy Montag|8.11.08 @ 11:59AM|#
Does it matter?
People are still worried about manufacturing jobs here? LOL!
NO it does not matter.
|8.11.08 @ 12:01PM|#
The banner ad is for asian women for love and marrige. I guess they are also exporting hot women.
Guy Montag|8.11.08 @ 12:01PM|#
P.S., thanks for the post that brough back the hot Asian Girls for Love and Marriage ads.
First Little Pig|8.11.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Yes. It means a higher standard of living for most of us......especially the Chinese.
New World Dan|8.11.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Does it matter?
Yes it damn well does. Economic growth is driven primarily by three
things: improved technology and the consumption of energy and the
consumption of raw materials. While a lot of China's growth is
comming from increased automation, they're also consuming more
energy and other raw materials. In a finite world, more energy and
raw materials consumed in China means less here. 1.2 billion people
with a rapidly rising standard of living is a serious issue.
Mike Laursen|8.11.08 @ 12:09PM|#
I'm more relieved by these statistics. I assumed they produced a
lot more than 17% of manufactured goods, and assumed they had taken
over as top manufacturer a few years ago.
Has anybody else tried to order any parts in the last month or so,
and been told that they are back ordered? We ordered a part for our
weed whacker and another part for our Roomba. Af first, I thought
it was just a coincidence that both are back ordered, then I
remembered that China curtailed manufacturing for the Olympics.
Maybe it's not a coincidence.
Conservationist|8.11.08 @ 12:18PM|#
You mean history will repeat itself, and Mongols will attack the
West AGAIN?
It can't be.
Luckily, we're multicultural and support democracy, so surely
they'll know we are nice guys and not attack us too hard.
(emo face)
Ska|8.11.08 @ 12:20PM|#
How about that interview with Dubya and Costas last night? Did anyone else cringe in horror at the incoherent rambling, I mean - Bush's responses - to a fucking sports announcer's questions? Did anyone else think it was a really bizarre forum for an interview with the PUSA?
|8.11.08 @ 12:25PM|#
Dubya and Costas in the same room together and no one had the common decency to open fire.
Ska|8.11.08 @ 12:29PM|#
The Chinese government is well versed in good and bad propaganda. They weren't letting anyone stop that clusterfuck.
|8.11.08 @ 12:32PM|#
Dubya and Costas in the same room together and no one had
the common decency to open fire.
American media doesn't televise any shooting sports.
|8.11.08 @ 12:38PM|#
Dubya and Costas in the same room together and no one had
the common decency to open fire.
Admittedly, its a low bar, but I thought Costas did a better job of
interviewing the President than any of the furrowed-brow
"Anchorman" set.
|8.11.08 @ 12:53PM|#
It does make sense that a country of 1.3 billion could produce
more manufactured goods than a country with 300 million. The fact
that the US is even close to China in absolute terms is a monument
to US efficiency or Chinese inefficiency.
I hate these cheerleader, the red hoard is out producing us
stories.
|8.11.08 @ 12:56PM|#
"In a finite world, more energy and raw materials consumed in
China means less here. 1.2 billion people with a rapidly rising
standard of living is a serious issue."
Oh no! Other countries will have a higher standard of living at our
expense?! Ah, if what you say is true, maybe it's about time for
the U.S. to suck it up and take one for the "world team"...
|8.11.08 @ 12:56PM|#
The great leap...
Ha ha.
Admittedly, its a low bar, but I thought Costas did a better
job of interviewing the President than any of the furrowed-brow
"Anchorman" set. Count it, RC. It's not even 1PM on Monday,
and we can disagree the whole rest of the week.
They should give that guy the MTP gig.
robc|8.11.08 @ 1:03PM|#
joe,
Leave Costas were he is. Sports are more important than politics,
thus the better guys end up there.
|8.11.08 @ 1:15PM|#
I agree with Joe and RC. I thought Costas did a really good job. He asked him pointed questions about important topics. I think the President did a good job of answering them as well. It was a good interview.
|8.11.08 @ 1:18PM|#
I agree with joe, RC and John. However, I think it's less because of Costas' awesomeness and more because of who Costas is. Bush and his handlers went in thinking it would be an Olympic puff piece with soft focuses and ascendant horn music, so his guard was down. If Bush went in as prepared and defensive as he would with Russert, Bush would've eaten Costas' lunch.
Ska|8.11.08 @ 1:23PM|#
Good job answering? IDK, he seemed to trail off at the end of
most of his responses, especially the first several questions. I
couldn't stand the "importance of religion" answers. And then
there's the whole issue of people doing time for using
steroids.
Ah, maybe it was just my first reaction. I really didn't think it
was impressive.
|8.11.08 @ 1:31PM|#
Mo,
What interviewer's lunch has Bush ever eaten?
I think Bush did better here than in most inverviews, if only
because his answers didn't have that pre-determined, on-message,
ignore the question, talking-point feel to them.
robc,
I've long been of the opinion that sports journalism is just like
political journalism, except the stakes are lower.
|8.11.08 @ 1:41PM|#
"I think Bush did better here than in most inverviews, if only
because his answers didn't have that pre-determined, on-message,
ignore the question, talking-point feel to them."
I think politicians would do better if they would do that more and
give straight answers. Bush's best answer last night was in
response to the question of why he decided to come to the games. He
said that the honor of holding the olympics was very important to
the Chinese people and he owed it to them to attend the games. I
thought that was a really good answer. Until last night I thought
Bush should not have gone to the games. But he made a good counter
point in that regardless of how bad the Chinese government is, this
is really important to the Chinese people and it doesn't do us a
lot of good to insult them while trying to criticize their
government.
|8.11.08 @ 1:52PM|#
What interviewer's lunch has Bush ever eaten?
I think Bush did better here than in most inverviews, if only
because his answers didn't have that pre-determined, on-message,
ignore the question, talking-point feel to them.
I think you answered my question. If an interviewer can't get a
straight answer or anything revealing and instead gets talking
points, the interviewer loses. The only way the interviewer wins is
if the spin and talking points make the subject look bad and no one
has really done a good job of it.
He said that the honor of holding the olympics was very
important to the Chinese people and he owed it to them to attend
the games. I thought that was a really good answer. Until last
night I thought Bush should not have gone to the games. But he made
a good counter point in that regardless of how bad the Chinese
government is, this is really important to the Chinese people and
it doesn't do us a lot of good to insult them while trying to
criticize their government.
That would be a good answer if he went to Athens, the birthplace of
the Olympic Games and democracy. However, it's also not a good
answer when you know that this is the first opening ceremonies
outside the US ever attended by a sitting president. He could
easily have skipped it and used the past 100 years of history as
precedent.
This is the case of a loan shark asking you a favor and feeling
compelled to go.
|8.11.08 @ 1:56PM|#
It's not even 1PM on Monday, and we can disagree the whole
rest of the week.
Release the hounds!
In a finite world. . .
Yeah, yeah, true in principle, I guess, but we are so far away from
hitting the resource limits of this planet, it ain't even funny. By
the time that happens, asteroid mining will solve all our resource
problems.
|8.11.08 @ 1:58PM|#
However, it's also not a good answer when you know that this
is the first opening ceremonies outside the US ever attended by a
sitting president. He could easily have skipped it and used the
past 100 years of history as precedent.
Given what was happening in Georgia, he should have re-routed, and
announced that he would be touring the disputed area. The fucking
Russians would have had to agree to a cease-fire at that point -
even they aren't crazy enough to risk the almighty shitstorm if
they winged the President.
|8.11.08 @ 2:02PM|#
John,
I think politicians would do better if they would do that more
and give straight answers.
Is it just us political geeks? Do normal people watch a debate or
an interview where the politician completely ignores the question
and recites an answer to a completely different question about a
completely different topic, and come away impressed?
Mo,
If an interviewer can't get a straight answer or anything
revealing and instead gets talking points, the interviewer
loses. I think it depends on how it's done. If an interviewer
keeps asking the unanswered question and draws attention to the
dodge, he wins even if - no, because - the politician keeps
yammering his prepared "answer," and makes it obvious that he's
ignoring the quesiton. I remember Steve Forbes used to do that, and
he looked like an ass.
|8.11.08 @ 2:03PM|#
The American people have been brainwashed into believing that our economy depends on domestic workers toiling away producing plastic doodads on assembly lines. Everyone some Dobbstard starts venting about China "taking away our jobs", I tell them good riddance.
|8.11.08 @ 2:06PM|#
If an interviewer keeps asking the unanswered question and
draws attention to the dodge, he wins even if - no, because - the
politician keeps yammering his prepared "answer," and makes it
obvious that he's ignoring the quesiton.
Yeah, but no one really does that anymore. No one does it to Bush
and no one does it during debates.
|8.11.08 @ 2:26PM|#
What say you, Hit & Runners? Does it matter?
Where the fuck is my personal robot?
|8.11.08 @ 3:36PM|#
In a finite world, more energy and raw materials consumed in
China means less here. 1.2 billion people with a rapidly rising
standard of living is a serious issue.
This is economically ignorant on several levels. There are hundreds
of years worth of known energy reserves located in the U.S. alone
-- we're the Saudi Arabia of coal. Hundreds of years worth of known
uranium reserves scattered around the world. There's no shortage of
energy, just a NIMBY mentality preventing its utilization.
And, much of the stuff built with that energy and raw materials is
finding its way over here, improving our standard of living,
without having to deal with the enormous pollution levels the
Chinese live with.
The biggest possible downside is that the Chinese may take their
earnings and build up their already huge military and go "shopping"
for some new territory.
But, the upside is that the increasing prosperity puts pressure on
the Chinese government to keep liberalizing their country. If we
can get 1.3 billion peaceful and productive people living there,
that's a GOOD thing.
|8.11.08 @ 3:50PM|#
The odd thing is that the new Chinese middle class is so fond of
foreign made goods of high quality. Yet many of them are buying
crap they made in China shipped to the US for assembly and then
returned to china for sale. So in the end the quality they think
they are buying is already locally made.
We as a country are screwed on the manufacturing end. Shame since
that is the only thing that made this country into what it is now.
A all service industry economy is doomed. Anyone tried getting
service for anything lately? they act as though they are put off by
the thought of having to actually provide a service with customer
relations.
Unless all of you think more dot coms will save the day LMAO.. Tell
me when we end up going to war with China who will make our
weapons? China?
Mike Laursen|8.11.08 @ 4:40PM|#
A all service industry economy is doomed. Anyone tried
getting service for anything lately? they act as though they are
put off by the thought of having to actually provide a service with
customer relations.
Yes. Just looking back at the last month or so, the quality of
service I've received ranged from excellent to crappy.
I disagree that service industry is doomed. Think about all the
repetitive chores you do and your personal things to do list. You
can probably think of dozens of areas where it would be awesome to
be able to afford someone to help get those things done. There's
tremendous room for growth.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245