American Economics Thread

[chgough34]

That's a lot of cope in the word "generally". Because there's a lot of high tech products that are made outside of the US, and increasingly so.

There’s no cope. The presumption (correctly) is of the U.S. on the technological frontier coupled with DC meltdowns and comic relief on SDF when people find the rare exception - TSMC, ASML, Huawei, HSR, green energy, shipbuilding, and EVs and misapplications of export data - China is the worlds largest high-tech exporter because it’s where phones and PCs are assembled and the entire phone/PC is counted as a “Chinese” export.

When the U.S. is on the technological frontier - it’s just accepted as fact and internalized by everyone without it needing to be spelled out - hence the constant fretting about hypothetical aircraft engine export controls in the C919 thread, the constant comparisons against AMAT/LRCX/KLAC in the semiconductor thread or the comparisons against QCOM/NVDA in the semiconductor thread, the references to Pfizer when discussing Sinovac - as well as the endless US industrial firms in obscure market leading positions - be it Emerson Electric, Badger Meter, Vertiv, John Deere, ThermoFisher, Corteva, Cummins, Agilent, and countless, countless others.

Additionally, That was not your argument so please don't change the goalpost. Your argument was the following :



Which have not been proven to be correct. The TSMC fab is using a lot of Taiwan engineers, has been reported and these fabs need to be running 24hrs. Saying American workers can do in less time what Taiwan engineers can do has no merit and especially wrong in light of the advances of TSMC compared to US home grown foundaries. So in reality US workers are not more productive or efficient than Taiwan's engineers at TSMC.

I typed it out quickly. Oh no what shall I do if I don’t proofread my every SDF post.

 

[chgough34]

You're wrong here. If you're stuck with low profitability factories as a result of FDI investment that wasn't put down based on market forces....

Nope. FDI simulatenously has increasing returns to scale and drives inefficient firms out of business. Since the U.S. is such a large, complex, and diversified economy - every economic activity will be present in U.S. borders to meet the needs of an unrivaled consumer market. Thus, economic policy is about improving within sector TFP and between sector TFP.

Literally just resource misallocation. You can argue there's a strategic imperative to invest inefficiently for national security, but that isn't productivity.

Resource misallocation is when profitable business operating in market conditions under competitive pressures. Mmmmm. So misallocative, tsmc Arizona can even issue tons of corporate bonds. Mmmm.

 

[manqiangrexue]

There’s no cope. The presumption (correctly)

You say your own presumption is correct? You turn your own papers in pre-graded too when you were in school? LOL

is of the U.S. on the technological frontier coupled with DC meltdowns and comic relief on SDF when people find the rare exception - TSMC, ASML, Huawei, HSR, green energy, shipbuilding, and EVs and misapplications of export data - China is the worlds largest high-tech exporter because it’s where phones and PCs are assembled and the entire phone/PC is counted as a “Chinese” export.

When the U.S. is on the technological frontier - it’s just accepted as fact and internalized by everyone without it needing to be spelled out - hence the constant fretting about hypothetical aircraft engine export controls in the C919 thread, the constant comparisons against AMAT/LRCX/KLAC in the semiconductor thread or the comparisons against QCOM/NVDA in the semiconductor thread, the references to Pfizer when discussing Sinovac - as well as the endless US industrial firms in obscure market leading positions - be it Emerson Electric, Badger Meter, Vertiv, John Deere, ThermoFisher, Corteva, Cummins, Agilent, and countless, countless others.

Nyet, China leading is the norm... by a large margin. American advantages are the exception now:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I typed it out quickly.

And wrongly

Oh no what shall I do if I don’t proofread my every SDF post.

You shall be wrong, as you always are, proofreading or not.

Nope. FDI simulatenously has increasing returns to scale and drives inefficient firms out of business. Since the U.S. is such a large, complex, and diversified economy - every economic activity will be present in U.S. borders to meet the needs of an unrivaled consumer market. Thus, economic policy is about improving within sector TFP and between sector TFP.

That's called being taken over, dumbass, when a foreign firm comes in and drives your inefficient firms out of business. This is the opposite of what needs to happen. Indigenous firms need to be strengthened until they run foreign firms out of business. That's China.

Resource misallocation is when profitable business operating in market conditions under competitive pressures.

That's almost as stupid as your definition of trade surplus, which used all domestic economic parameters. According to this, you could not have resource misallocation if your business is not profitable or when it makes unforced errors.

Mmmmm. So misallocative, tsmc Arizona can even issue tons of corporate bonds. Mmmm.

Hey, you sound like Homer Simpson! You've got his intellect for sure. Who buys bonds from a factory made to produce chips at a market non-competitive rate, put into existence just to make the US feel safe?

 

[MortyandRick]

There’s no cope. The presumption (correctly) is of the U.S. on the technological frontier coupled with DC meltdowns and comic relief on SDF when people find the rare exception - TSMC, ASML, Huawei, HSR, green energy, shipbuilding, and EVs and misapplications of export data - China is the worlds largest high-tech exporter because it’s where phones and PCs are assembled and the entire phone/PC is counted as a “Chinese” export.

When the U.S. is on the technological frontier - it’s just accepted as fact and internalized by everyone without it needing to be spelled out - hence the constant fretting about hypothetical aircraft engine export controls in the C919 thread, the constant comparisons against AMAT/LRCX/KLAC in the semiconductor thread or the comparisons against QCOM/NVDA in the semiconductor thread, the references to Pfizer when discussing Sinovac - as well as the endless US industrial firms in obscure market leading positions - be it Emerson Electric, Badger Meter, Vertiv, John Deere, ThermoFisher, Corteva, Cummins, Agilent, and countless, countless others.

There is pure cope. Huawei EV, HSR, 5G they all do not require US components and the US can't sanction any of those Chinese products in that field. That's also just fact, if they could, they would.

Sure US is on the tech frontier in the past but that advantage is quickly eroding.

Even in obscure industrial markets, there are non US companies in the same domains. Many of these companies source form china and only china can produce their products in a cost effective way. Hence US manufacturing advantage is eroding quickly.

I typed it out quickly. Oh no what shall I do if I don’t proofread my every SDF post.

Lol you didn't make a simple spelling mistake, you make a content and knowledge mistake, so don't try to pass it off an a small mis type. Your whole argument, which you tried to support with multiple posts, is wrong. Just accept it.

 

[chgough34]

There is pure cope. Huawei EV, HSR, 5G they all do not require US components and the US can't sanction any of those Chinese products in that field. That's also just fact, if they could, they would.

Sure US is on the tech frontier in the past but that advantage is quickly eroding.

Even if “that advantage is quickly eroding”, the U.S. would still have it today, and the U.S. would be on the technological frontier (absent the random capital goods sector of the day where the U.S. isn’t the market leader which will get talked about, quite literally, the world over). Any reference to that ASPI report simply misreads the report which was about research papers and did not in any way whatsoever try and predict technological commercialization in the future (nor could it, since technical competency is necessary but not nearly sufficient).

Even in obscure industrial markets, there are non US companies in the same domains. Many of these companies source form china and only china can produce their products in a cost effective way. Hence US manufacturing advantage is eroding quickly.

Nah. US manufacturing advantages are enduring and will be for decades into the future. As referenced a few days back about IBM, even IBM, in a competitive environment, is still able to have market leading positions in supercomputers, mainframes, among other products - despite decades of mismanagement since trying to replicate capital and technological advantages, even under the best of circumstances is a long, uncertain road.

Lol you didn't make a simple spelling mistake, you make a content and knowledge mistake, so don't try to pass it off an a small mis type. Your whole argument, which you tried to support with multiple posts, is wrong. Just accept it.

No. I clarified my comment when High Ground asked about it. And of course, the global economy is not a zero-sum game. FDI is positive-sum for all involved.

FDI that drives inefficient firms out of business simultaneously redirects labor and capital units to more efficient domestic and foreign firms, making the economy more efficient both through resource allocation and because surviving firms have increasing returns to scale and can amortize fixed capital costs over greater unit production. Further, the increasing success of either foreign or domestic firms creates opportunities for both foreign and domestic firms in upstream supplier and downstream user categories to either 1) scale production and become more efficient through increasing returns to scale or 2) become more competitive through improved input components. FDI is win-win, it is most certainly not a zero-sum game as some would like to believe.

of course, even assuming arguendo, that it was, TSMC’s share capital is most entirely owned by US residents. US citizens have direct claims on all technology and profits generated by tsmc. The U.S. provides capital units and gets free dividends while Taiwanese people work at a wage level set by the U.S. Sounds like winning to me.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Even if “that advantage is quickly eroding”, the U.S. would still have it today, and the U.S. would be on the technological frontier (absent the random capital goods sector of the day where the U.S. isn’t the market leader which will get talked about, quite literally, the world over). Any reference to that ASPI report simply misreads the report which was about research papers and did not in any way whatsoever try and predict technological commercialization in the future (nor could it, since technical competency is necessary but not nearly sufficient).

First of all, it's rather sad to cling to something literally today because you know your future is screwed. Secondly, China leads in 90% of key tech today.

Nah. US manufacturing advantages are enduring and will be for decades into the future. As referenced a few days back about IBM, even IBM, in a competitive environment, is still able to have market leading positions in supercomputers, mainframes, among other products - despite decades of mismanagement since trying to replicate capital and technological advantages, even under the best of circumstances is a long, uncertain road.

1. That's basically IBM's decline.
2. The 2 bold parts seem to be slapping each other.

No. I clarified my comment when High Ground asked about it. And of course, the global economy is not a zero-sum game. FDI is positive-sum for all involved.

FDI that drives inefficient firms out of business simultaneously redirects labor and capital units to more efficient domestic and foreign firms, making the economy more efficient both through resource allocation and because surviving firms have increasing returns to scale and can amortize fixed capital costs over greater unit production.

FDI redirects labor and capital to efficient foreign firms away from domestic and other foriegn firms. That's why it's essential to use it as a means with caution like China instead of coveting it as an end like the US.

 

[lube]

Nope. FDI simulatenously has increasing returns to scale and drives inefficient firms out of business. Since the U.S. is such a large, complex, and diversified economy - every economic activity will be present in U.S. borders to meet the needs of an unrivaled consumer market. Thus, economic policy is about improving within sector TFP and between sector TFP.

That's just silly as we already know US fabs already cost 40% more than their equivalent in Taiwan to run.
Maybe there's automation to shave away at the margins.

But we all know when it comes push to shove, selling those more expensive chips is a matter of political connections and influence, or someone deciding to just eat up the higher costs or pass it somewhere else, most likely the government.

So no, there's no reason to consider this silliness of declaring the US is productive therefore all past, present and future investment will print money in the US and reflects its immensely world-beating productive capacities and unfathomably deep human, financial capital pools. I think someone's starting from the conclusion and working backwards.

 

[MortyandRick]

Even if “that advantage is quickly eroding”, the U.S. would still have it today, and the U.S. would be on the technological frontier (absent the random capital goods sector of the day where the U.S. isn’t the market leader which will get talked about, quite literally, the world over). Any reference to that ASPI report simply misreads the report which was about research papers and did not in any way whatsoever try and predict technological commercialization in the future (nor could it, since technical competency is necessary but not nearly sufficient).

It is quickly eroding and the US is having less and less monopoly on key technologies. Of course you don't believe the ASPI report asn it doesn't fit your narrative. Key research papers preclude other advancements. That's a fact.

Nah. US manufacturing advantages are enduring and will be for decades into the future. As referenced a few days back about IBM, even IBM, in a competitive environment, is still able to have market leading positions in supercomputers, mainframes, among other products - despite decades of mismanagement since trying to replicate capital and technological advantages, even under the best of circumstances is a long, uncertain road.

Wrong. IBM doesn't even manufacture much anymore. And it's revenues abbe dropped over 50% in the last decade. Thats clearly a sign of it's decline. Most Americans products are manufactured in China. Even the John Deere that you mentioned make a lot do their key components in china. China can just do it better and cheaper. That's a clear sing of its advantages vis a vis the US.

No. I clarified my comment when High Ground asked about it. And of course, the global economy is not a zero-sum game. FDI is positive-sum for all involved.

FDI that drives inefficient firms out of business simultaneously redirects labor and capital units to more efficient domestic and foreign firms, making the economy more efficient both through resource allocation and because surviving firms have increasing returns to scale and can amortize fixed capital costs over greater unit production. Further, the increasing success of either foreign or domestic firms creates opportunities for both foreign and domestic firms in upstream supplier and downstream user categories to either 1) scale production and become more efficient through increasing returns to scale or 2) become more competitive through improved input components. FDI is win-win, it is most certainly not a zero-sum game as some would like to believe.

No. You didnt clarify, you were plain wrong. You said the US workers were just as productive and worked less hours than their Taiwan counterparts which is certainly not true. Otherwise it would be TSMC trying to hire and bring over Americans to run their fab and not the other way around. And the US would be at the frontier of bleeding edge chip production, not Taiwan if Americans workers were so good and productive as you had mentioned.

of course, even assuming arguendo, that it was, TSMC’s share capital is most entirely owned by US residents. US citizens have direct claims on all technology and profits generated by tsmc. The U.S. provides capital units and gets free dividends while Taiwanese people work at a wage level set by the U.S. Sounds like winning to me.

Um no. Is this the same type of lie that you posted about Ericsson having most of their workers in the US ? And in reality it was only 10% in North America? You cope so hard for the US, you're literally making stuff up.

 

[chgough34]

It is quickly eroding and the US is having less and less monopoly on key technologies. Of course you don't believe the ASPI report asn it doesn't fit your narrative. Key research papers preclude other advancements. That's a fact.

Everything you say confirms what I said. The U.S. is on the technological frontier, otherwise there would be no “less and less monopoly” to decline from and there would nothing could be nothing that could be “quickly eroding”. The ASPI report needs to be read for what it actually says - there is a colorable argument for China being on the technological frontier in the future using papers as a leading paper - but papers are but one of many leading indicators (and they definitely are not a concurrent indicator), and of course, papers alone, the technological frontier and commercialization do not make.

Wrong. IBM doesn't even manufacture much anymore. And its revenues abbe dropped over 50% in the last decade. Thats clearly a sign of its decline. Most Americans products are manufactured in China.

Yes, exactly my point. Outside of the factual inaccuracy of ibm not manufacturing anything, that IBM is a highly competitive manufacturer even after a horrible decade just goes to show the enduring competiveness of Us firms.

Even the John Deere that you mentioned make a lot do their key components in china. China can just do it better and cheaper. That's a clear sing of its advantages vis a vis the US.

John Deere primarily manufacturers in the U.S (and was one of countless firms on the technological frontier). That China has comparative advantages does not moot the point

No. You didnt clarify, you were plain wrong. You said the US workers were just as productive and worked less hours than their Taiwan counterparts which is certainly not true. Otherwise it would be TSMC trying to hire and bring over Americans to run their fab and not the other way around. And the US would be at the frontier of bleeding edge chip production, not Taiwan if Americans workers were so good and productive as you had mentioned.

Extensive vs. intensive margins are different

Um no. Is this the same type of lie that you posted about Ericsson having most of their workers in the US ? And in reality it was only 10% in North America? You cope so hard for the US, you're literally making stuff up.

TSMC is listed on the NYSE and is included in the Nasdaq composite. Simply aggregate holdings by Nasdaq tracking index funds means U.S. asset managers would get large voting pluralities and effective voting control, even if you ignore other U.S. investors.

 

[MortyandRick]

Everything you say confirms what I said. The U.S. is on the technological frontier, otherwise there would be no “less and less monopoly” to decline from and there would nothing could be nothing that could be “quickly eroding”. The ASPI report needs to be read for what it actually says - there is a colorable argument for China being on the technological frontier in the future using papers as a leading paper - but papers are but one of many leading indicators (and they definitely are not a concurrent indicator), and of course, papers alone, the technological frontier and commercialization do not make.

Not really, Less and less monopoly means that where they do not hold the monopoly on most things and thus while the US WAS on the tech frontier , they are not on the tech frontier anymore .

I mean all the US companies you mentioned, there are other companies doing there same thing at generally the same level, save for a couple niche areas.

Yes, exactly my point. Outside of the factual inaccuracy of ibm not manufacturing anything, that IBM is a highly competitive manufacturer even after a horrible decade just goes to show the enduring competiveness of Us firms.

You say enduring competitiveness, I see a company trying to hold on to it's past glory but taking. It's past manufacturing prowess has decrease. One can say it shows the general degradation of US manufacturing as it could not stay competitive manufacturing the same previous products in the US.

John Deere primarily manufacturers in the U.S (and was one of countless firms on the technological frontier). That China has comparative advantages does not moot the point

China's XCMG makes the same thing and is also one of the countless Chinese firms on the tech frontier. So nothing special I guess.

Extensive vs. intensive margins are different

That's a cope out answer. You were wrong about the efficiently of US workers being on par with Taiwanese workers at the TSMC plant, using is as some false proxy of US productivity when in reality the fab is run mostly be Taiwanese workers and engineers

TSMC is listed on the NYSE and is included in the Nasdaq composite. Simply aggregate holdings by Nasdaq tracking index funds means U.S. asset managers would get large voting pluralities and effective voting control, even if you ignore other U.S. investors.

That may be but the company is headquartered in Taiwan and any tech trade secrets they may have still goes through the Taiwan govt. It is not like what you said about all of TSMC technology belongs to the US. Bytedance is publically listed as well in the US but their algorithm and tech IP is controlled by China, and the Chinese govt just have to make it illegal to sell it, for them not to do so, irregardless of whether they have a lot of foreign investors.