Display:
I think you're really overestimating both the value and the amount of work that actually goes into all the infamously cheap junk, now including electronic components, that still make up the bulk of China's exports. The technology and know-how didn't move to China, just the cheapest parts of the production processes. The kind of thing that takes a national industrial policy in a place like China happens much more quickly than you seem to be allowing for in the Western-based, multinational corporate HQs that moved the production to China in the first place.
by santiago on Wed Jul 28th, 2010 at 05:14:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not the cheap junk I worry about. It's the intermediate goods.

Your timescale of 10-15 weeks is almost certainly true for any individual shipyard or steel plant, but we don't have the kind of cement production or bricklaying capacity or steel production to run all those replacement projects in parallel (and renovate their supporting infrastructure, which hasn't been properly maintained for between one and four decades), nevermind the political institutions to organise such an effort.

Let's be wildly optimistic and say that we have or can create sufficient slack in our industrial plant to re-build ten percent of the Chinese industrial capacity dedicated to exports in parallel. Let's further say that all replacement industrial capacity is immediately dedicated to this project, and that China's domestic industrial plant is roughly equal to the effort that would be mobilised for the reconstruction effort.

Under these wildly optimistic assumptions, it would still take seven to eight iterations, or between 1½ and 2½ years at 10 and 15 weeks per iteration, respectively, to replace the full productive power of China. During which time we would essentially be operating a wartime economy.

And this assumes that you put engineers in charge of the process, so it works as smoothly as can be reasonably expected from a human endeavour. With the crop of lawyers, economists and bookies currently holding the commanding heights of our industrial plant, you'd have to multiply by an idiot factor and add a run-around-like-headless-chickens-for-a-while term.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jul 28th, 2010 at 06:19:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Under these wildly optimistic assumptions, it would still take seven to eight iterations, or between 1½ and 2½ years at 10 and 15 weeks per iteration, respectively, to replace the full productive power of China. During which time we would essentially be operating a wartime economy.

On that timescale, it would be a great way to get out of the depression. After all, we're starting out from a recession so there is slack that could come online faster.

However, we've become more adept at liquidating plant so some of the redundant plan may already have been dismantled.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 29th, 2010 at 04:09:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A service in our new service economies is dismantling, crating and shipping plant to South Asia where it will be reassembled for industrial use. I can't supply references, but I have come across such a service company carrying out a contract not far from here. The factory, in the textile sector, was closed, the employees laid off, and the plant shipped off. Not to China, but to Laos (or it could have been Viet Nam, Thailand...). The service company has done this job for several clients in the area, where the textile industry has all but shut down.

Another, though cruder and more risky, closing-down trick was arson. Burn the factory down (with consequent damage to machinery) and collect on the insurance (if you can). This one has gone out of favour as the insurance companies started looking seriously at what was going on.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jul 29th, 2010 at 04:23:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But under our current dysfunctional financial system, cutting off China would make the going concerns who are supposed to rebuild the capacity at home under your scheme even more insolvent than they already are, since they would lose their Chinese assets without being able to default on their liabilities with domestic financial institutions in a non-disruptive manner.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jul 29th, 2010 at 04:31:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series