I’ve noticed.

I’m not a democracy worshiper, so I can’t say I’m disappointed in the electorate.

I also think it’s a systemic issue, so the electorate is not entirely to blame for the situation, most of them attended government schools after all.

Legally, you are represented in Congress, whether you like it or not.

That they legally represent you and the other 290 million citizens gives Congress the right to tax you, whether you like it or not.

That they legally represent you and 290 million citizens gives Congress the right to spend those taxes as they decide, whether you like it or not.

A rational person would realize how much his legal representatives control his life, and try to do something about it. That’s why I write to my Congressman, attend town hall meetings, and write letters to the local paper. I hope you do the same, Martin.

The 535 members of Congress represent … you …

No, they don’t. They say they do, and you parrot their declaration, but they don’t. I’ll stand by my usage of “represent” even if it’s not common.

“It matters not. He is your King.”

The sentiment is increasingly globalized.

The 535 members of Congress represent the 290 million or so citizens of this nation, including you if you are a citizen. You may not wish them to represent you. You may not be happy with the decisions they make on your behalf. but as long as you are a citizen of the U.S., they are representing you.

Other than through increased rationing by bureaucracy, how does this idea alter the quantity of resources required to produce said health care?

It doesn’t.

There’s no magic box by which political power can produce those resources.

but what do we blame that on?
Trade policy?
Maintaining our empire?
Entitlements?

We have a very expensive government.

Elected officials don’t represent me, and the rents they impose limit my capacity to pursue other goals, so I’ll go on worrying about that even if you’re happy with it.

Contrary to your personal goals, consumers in the free market have been consuming more food and more gasoline (though growth of the latter has slowed). U.S. factories have been supplying those needs.

Americans have also been directly and indirectly consuming more chemicals and plastics. U.S. factories have been supplying those needs as well.

Americans have been consuming more pharmaceuticals. U.S. factories have been supplying those needs.

Americans, through decision of their elected representatives, have been indirectly consuming more defense and national security equipment. U.S. factories have been supplying those needs. That you do not agree with those wishes of the American people, as expressed through their elected representatives, seems irrelevant to the issue of whether U.S. manufacturing is healthy.

The questions I see in your reply would require research to answer. Do your own research. I don’t care about those questions.

Sorry, but your series of replies is confusing. You have mixed the productive output of the nation:

“Aircraft carriers and strategic bombers are “manufactured”, … “A rising line on a “manufactured output” graph

with your personal consumption habits:

“I don’t consume more and more gasoline and food.”

and, I guess, have made some point. Sorry, Martin, but I don’t understand what that point is.

Is your point that the U.S. economy is not producing the goods and services you personally wish that it did?

I wouldn’t ignore anything. I said that more and more of the stuff I consume seems to be imported. I don’t consume more and more gasoline and food. I actually consume less and less gasoline. I’m trying to consume less and less food but not so successfully.

Why would any discussion of what I consume exclude items I consume indirectly? Good question. Why? You tell me. I haven’t excluded any of these things.

Again, I posed specific questions, and you haven’t addressed them. You seem to be evading them instead.

I don’t know who the “we” is to which you refer. But I’m fairly certain economists do not refer to only high tech goods and automobiles when discussing either final goods or consumer goods.

Would you limit your analysis of “stuff you consume” to high tech and automobiles? and ignore other manufactured goods categories on which households spend considerable amounts, such as gasoline and food?

Why would any discussion of what you consume exclude those items you consume indirectly? Medical equipment, chemicals, plastics, and passenger aircraft – items produced in the U.S. – are all indirectly consumed b you.

If you’d truly like to know, do a little research.

That’s what I’m doing here. Thanks for the link.

BEA’s GDP by industry reports will show you that the U.S. produces many billions of: chemicals; machinery; computers and electronics goods; and fabircated metal products.

I assume that the U.S. produces these things. I’ve posed more specific questions.

How much of the growth in manufacturing do these things represent compared with products of the command economy?

How much foreign investment finances this growth and other growth in the market sector, compared with financing for the command economy (like Treasury securities and mortgage backed securities with an implicit Federal guarantee)?

More of what stuff you consume?

The usual stuff we discuss in this context, automobiles, dynamic RAM, flat panel displays, cellular phones, laptop computers and the like. We’ve discussed mp3 players in other threads for example.

Or do you refer to just the shirts and telephones and kitchen appliances which are labelled “Made in China”?

No. I haven’t mentioned any of these things. That must be you.

What do you mean when you use the word “consumer goods”? I think the most common definition would be:

goods that are ultimately consumed rather than used in the production of another good and specifically intended for the mass market

Such a definition would include not only televisions and t-shirts, but also gasoline, plastic bags, newspapers, motor vehicles, and packaged foods. The U.S. produces many billions of dollars of such consumer goods.

Arrowsmith: “Is it a natural evolution to shift from manufacturing consumer goods to more knowledge-based products?”

Of course, the service sector has been the largest component of U.S. GDP for at least 70 years if not longer.

I don’t think cultures design and manufacture products. Entrepreneurs and corporations employ workers to design and manufacture products. The smartest entrepreneurs and corporations will utilize the best workers for each part of the manufacturing process, regardless of the culture in which that talent developed.

martinbrock: “The vision of the U.S. as a “designing nation” is fundamentally a vision of central planning.”

I don’t have any such vision, but I don’t understand why you would equate “design” with “central planning”. U.S. businesses which compete furiously with each other can all possess strong design capabilities in the U.S. as well as manufacturing facilities abroad. Why would that be a “vision of central planning’?