lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,022
Likes: 49,424
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 12, 2020 20:00:19 GMT
Well you made a lot of people in the US addicted to drugs.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jan 12, 2020 20:02:16 GMT
Well you made a lot of people in the US addicted to drugs. That’s already the case now with a War on Drugs, though...
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,022
Likes: 49,424
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 12, 2020 20:07:43 GMT
Well you made a lot of people in the US addicted to drugs. That’s already the case now with a War on Drugs, though... Well it will be much bigger if there is no war on Drugs.
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jan 12, 2020 22:24:19 GMT
That’s already the case now with a War on Drugs, though... Well it will be much bigger if there is no war on Drugs. Even if that does turn out to be true, though, the War on Drugs still fuels lots and lots of organized crime and police militarization as a result. So maybe our crime and police brutality problems would be greatly reduced by no War on Drugs. Also, didn’t they once decriminalize drugs in Portugal while opening up treatment facilities—only to see addiction and overdose rates go down tremendously?
|
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jan 13, 2020 22:27:22 GMT
'Gerald Ford Reelected In 1976'.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,022
Likes: 49,424
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 14, 2020 4:47:44 GMT
'Gerald Ford Reelected In 1976'. We will se Carter try in 1980 and win most likely if the economy is not doing so good.
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Jan 14, 2020 6:37:21 GMT
'US Manufacturing Sector Stays In US'. As in, firms don't close down their factories here and outsource so many jobs and mass production overseas to developing cheap-labor havens, i.e. China and Vietnam. The U.S. as a whole would boast a higher standard of living, with higher wages in general, while being much more Conservative; the continued importance of men in the economy and the retention of Union power will force the Democrats to remain more in the vein of the New Deal while the GOP would not stray into Reaganite Neo-Liberalism. I'd imagine we'd have Universal Healthcare and other things of the like. Internationally, China is likely much poorer and most likely still much more Communist. Continued U.S. affluence, political stability and the lack of a serious challenger means U.S. global hegemony is still extremely strong into 2020.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,852
Likes: 13,234
|
Post by stevep on Jan 14, 2020 10:50:41 GMT
'US Manufacturing Sector Stays In US'. As in, firms don't close down their factories here and outsource so many jobs and mass production overseas to developing cheap-labor havens, i.e. China and Vietnam. The U.S. as a whole would boast a higher standard of living, with higher wages in general, while being much more Conservative; the continued importance of men in the economy and the retention of Union power will force the Democrats to remain more in the vein of the New Deal while the GOP would not stray into Reaganite Neo-Liberalism. I'd imagine we'd have Universal Healthcare and other things of the like. Internationally, China is likely much poorer and most likely still much more Communist. Continued U.S. affluence, political stability and the lack of a serious challenger means U.S. global hegemony is still extremely strong into 2020.
Possibly but isn't that mixing cause and effect? US corporations did that because the cheap work-forces are overseas and also US industry was already getting hammered by Japan, Taiwan and the like. Unless you assume that doesn't happen and then China stays very communists the workers are still there. It might be that somewhere else such as Latin America or India say becomes the new source of cheap labour for much of the western world.
If the US tried to keep industrial primacy it needs either: a) Very restrictive controls to prevent industry going abroad, which is unlikely given the US political situation. In that case the country might maintain large but relatively inefficient industries based around a reversion to traditional protectionist policies. b) It manages to spend a lot - and spend it wisely - on educating its workforce, developing new industrial methods and new industries. Even so as the established power this is going to be difficult as others can more easily play catch up but it would be possibly the best option for them.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,852
Likes: 13,234
|
Post by stevep on Jan 14, 2020 10:55:51 GMT
'Gerald Ford Reelected In 1976'. We will se Carter try in 1980 and win most likely if the economy is not doing so good.
I don't know if it would be Carter if he tried and failed in 76 but you would be likely to see a successful Democrat challenge if they failed in 76 and Ford had a less than dramatically impressive period of power. Both because the Republicans would have been in power for 12 years, because of the continued taint of Watergate - especially assuming Ford still pardons Nixon - and assuming that the continued economic problems during the 70's worsen and the Shah still falls. Almost certainly so if there is a hostage crisis in Tehran and Soviet adventurism in Afghanistan as OTL. - That's another reason why I don't think a more radical Carter is unlikely to be the Democratic candidate as he would be more likely to be defeated by a more conventional political figure of the time.
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Jan 14, 2020 15:10:32 GMT
The U.S. as a whole would boast a higher standard of living, with higher wages in general, while being much more Conservative; the continued importance of men in the economy and the retention of Union power will force the Democrats to remain more in the vein of the New Deal while the GOP would not stray into Reaganite Neo-Liberalism. I'd imagine we'd have Universal Healthcare and other things of the like. Internationally, China is likely much poorer and most likely still much more Communist. Continued U.S. affluence, political stability and the lack of a serious challenger means U.S. global hegemony is still extremely strong into 2020.
Possibly but isn't that mixing cause and effect? US corporations did that because the cheap work-forces are overseas and also US industry was already getting hammered by Japan, Taiwan and the like. Unless you assume that doesn't happen and then China stays very communists the workers are still there. It might be that somewhere else such as Latin America or India say becomes the new source of cheap labour for much of the western world.
If the US tried to keep industrial primacy it needs either: a) Very restrictive controls to prevent industry going abroad, which is unlikely given the US political situation. In that case the country might maintain large but relatively inefficient industries based around a reversion to traditional protectionist policies. b) It manages to spend a lot - and spend it wisely - on educating its workforce, developing new industrial methods and new industries. Even so as the established power this is going to be difficult as others can more easily play catch up but it would be possibly the best option for them.
Manufacturing losses before China were pretty small; Taiwan was a non-entity and West Germany/Japan were mainly confined to cars and steel. Most of what happened was really short term profit seeking: Manhattan Institute
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,852
Likes: 13,234
|
Post by stevep on Jan 14, 2020 20:06:45 GMT
Possibly but isn't that mixing cause and effect? US corporations did that because the cheap work-forces are overseas and also US industry was already getting hammered by Japan, Taiwan and the like. Unless you assume that doesn't happen and then China stays very communists the workers are still there. It might be that somewhere else such as Latin America or India say becomes the new source of cheap labour for much of the western world.
If the US tried to keep industrial primacy it needs either: a) Very restrictive controls to prevent industry going abroad, which is unlikely given the US political situation. In that case the country might maintain large but relatively inefficient industries based around a reversion to traditional protectionist policies. b) It manages to spend a lot - and spend it wisely - on educating its workforce, developing new industrial methods and new industries. Even so as the established power this is going to be difficult as others can more easily play catch up but it would be possibly the best option for them.
Manufacturing losses before China were pretty small; Taiwan was a non-entity and West Germany/Japan were mainly confined to cars and steel. Most of what happened was really short term profit seeking: Manhattan Institute
What time period are you talking about here? I remember the complaints about the Japanese 'laser' approach as they selected and then came to dominate assorted areas of industry from the 70' onwards, starting with areas of heavy industry such as steel and shipbuild - which was probably more in the 60's, then cars, assorted electrical goods and then increasingly electronic ones and a growing domination of high tech items in computing and related areas in the 80's.
The US was already falling behind Japan, S Korea and Germany in robotics in the late 70s' and early 80's so the fact they may have closed the gap somewhat probably relates more to the Japanese fiscal meltdown in ~1990 that their never really recovered from. I think the part from the 3rd paragraph of the MI quote points out the problem for the US. Its no longer a case of using productivity to produce more but to produce similar amounts with less workers. In part because the foreign market is a lot more challenging than in the decades after WWII. The US can't expand against more organised opposition in part because they have concentrated less on better production methods and investment in the workforce.
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Jan 15, 2020 9:06:46 GMT
Manufacturing losses before China were pretty small; Taiwan was a non-entity and West Germany/Japan were mainly confined to cars and steel. Most of what happened was really short term profit seeking: Manhattan Institute
What time period are you talking about here? I remember the complaints about the Japanese 'laser' approach as they selected and then came to dominate assorted areas of industry from the 70' onwards, starting with areas of heavy industry such as steel and shipbuild - which was probably more in the 60's, then cars, assorted electrical goods and then increasingly electronic ones and a growing domination of high tech items in computing and related areas in the 80's.
The US was already falling behind Japan, S Korea and Germany in robotics in the late 70s' and early 80's so the fact they may have closed the gap somewhat probably relates more to the Japanese fiscal meltdown in ~1990 that their never really recovered from. I think the part from the 3rd paragraph of the MI quote points out the problem for the US. Its no longer a case of using productivity to produce more but to produce similar amounts with less workers. In part because the foreign market is a lot more challenging than in the decades after WWII. The US can't expand against more organised opposition in part because they have concentrated less on better production methods and investment in the workforce.
Yes, as I said it was short term profit seeking as then anything really structural.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,852
Likes: 13,234
|
Post by stevep on Jan 15, 2020 16:08:44 GMT
What time period are you talking about here? I remember the complaints about the Japanese 'laser' approach as they selected and then came to dominate assorted areas of industry from the 70' onwards, starting with areas of heavy industry such as steel and shipbuild - which was probably more in the 60's, then cars, assorted electrical goods and then increasingly electronic ones and a growing domination of high tech items in computing and related areas in the 80's.
The US was already falling behind Japan, S Korea and Germany in robotics in the late 70s' and early 80's so the fact they may have closed the gap somewhat probably relates more to the Japanese fiscal meltdown in ~1990 that their never really recovered from. I think the part from the 3rd paragraph of the MI quote points out the problem for the US. Its no longer a case of using productivity to produce more but to produce similar amounts with less workers. In part because the foreign market is a lot more challenging than in the decades after WWII. The US can't expand against more organised opposition in part because they have concentrated less on better production methods and investment in the workforce.
Yes, as I said it was short term profit seeking as then anything really structural.
?? Not sure what your referring to here? The problems that resulted for the US because it failed to consider longer term needs/advantages in its industrial and technological policies or something else?
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Jan 15, 2020 17:48:27 GMT
Yes, as I said it was short term profit seeking as then anything really structural.
?? Not sure what your referring to here? The problems that resulted for the US because it failed to consider longer term needs/advantages in its industrial and technological policies or something else?
The major U.S. companies chose cheap labor (short term profits) over making capital investments. It wasn't that the U.S. couldn't have remained on top, it's just that they chose to seek the aforementioned short term profits by offshoring.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,852
Likes: 13,234
|
Post by stevep on Jan 16, 2020 13:25:04 GMT
?? Not sure what your referring to here? The problems that resulted for the US because it failed to consider longer term needs/advantages in its industrial and technological policies or something else?
The major U.S. companies chose cheap labor (short term profits) over making capital investments. It wasn't that the U.S. couldn't have remained on top, it's just that they chose to seek the aforementioned short term profits by offshoring.
Ok thanks for clarifying. That's the same mistake that British [mis-]management, too often encouraged by politicians, has been making for most of the last ~170 years.
|
|