mflawson@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Michael F Lawson) (09/28/89)
I have a few questions maybe some kind soul could respond to. Does anybody know the latest scoop on US vs Japanese electronics industries? Are we still losing ground? I heard that some of the US semiconductor companies were trying to band together and regain some of the DRAM market. Are there any US companies which still make consumer electronics whom I can support? ( I thought that there was at least one still making TV sets; was it Magnavox? ) If there are, are the products themselves made in USA or assembled overseas? I hope the US still has a good lead in computers. I was saddened recently when I discovered that in my supposedly US-made Tandy computer, the disk drive comes from Sony and the keyboard comes from Fujitsu. Yuck. And I thought I was supporting the US industry. :-( Are there any hopes for new upstart US buisnesses to regain any of these high-tech markets? Please, someone give me some hope. 1/2 :-( Thanks for any information, Mike Lawson (recently saddened by Sony's acquisition of Columbia Pix) mflawson@uokmax.uucp
phil@diablo.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (09/29/89)
In article <1989Sep28.082305.10099@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> mflawson@uokmax.UUCP (Michael F Lawson) writes: |I heard that some of the US semiconductor |companies were trying to band together and regain some of the DRAM market. Just in time for the 1 megabit DRAM glut... |( I thought that there was at least one still making TV sets; |was it Magnavox? ) Well, Zenith makes a very pretty VGA monitor. But it doesn't do SVGA, sigh. |If there are, are the products themselves made in USA |or assembled overseas? I think a lot of Japanese companies do assembly in America. Their labor costs are comparable to ours now and it looks good with Congress. |(recently saddened by Sony's acquisition of Columbia Pix) I don't know, the consumer seems to have benefitted by Sony's purchase of CBS (?) in that the copyguard crap seems to have died. With the Japanese fondness for perfection, I think they're less likely to colorize movies than Mr. Turner. -- Phil Ngai, phil@diablo.amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil "Should the US send assault rifles to Colombia? How about small arms?"
myers@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Bob Myers) (09/30/89)
>Are there any US companies which still make consumer electronics whom I can >support? ( I thought that there was at least one still making TV sets; >was it Magnavox? ) If there are, are the products themselves made in USA >or assembled overseas? At least one "Japanese" TV is actually made - tube and all - in the US. The vast majority - and perhaps all - of the Sony TVs, 19" and larger, sold in this country are made at the Sony plant in San Diego. Some parts - but very few - come from Japan, but they're mostly U.S. goods built with U.S. labor. I think that there are some other Japanese-owned plants in similar situations. Or do you insist on U.S. *designs*? Bob Myers KC0EW HP Graphics Tech. Div.| Opinions expressed here are not Ft. Collins, Colorado | those of my employer or any other myers%hpfcla@hplabs.hp.com | sentient life-form on this planet.
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) (09/30/89)
mflawson@uokmax.UUCP (Michael F Lawson) writes: > Does anybody know the latest scoop on US vs Japanese electronics industries? > Are we still losing ground? > Are there any US companies which still make consumer electronics whom I can > support? > I hope the US still has a good lead in computers. I recently discussed these issues on another newsgroup. Rather than rephrase it all to exactly fit your questions, let me simply repeat it here. It is long and repetitive, due to the fact that it was formed in response to a chain of postings. The main thrust of my points is that Japanese competition is good, not bad. The stronger it is, the better it serves the customer. ----- Free trade (international and otherwise) fosters world prosperity by allocating resources to the most efficient producers. Restricted trade, by its nature, allocates resources on the basis of criteria other than efficiency -- thus the world in general suffers. The greatest harm is, however, always inside the country that attempts to protect itself the most from outside competition -- because it does so by forcing its consumers to pay more for less. This protection can be in the form of subsides (from tax revenues), tariffs, or out and out embargos. The result is the same -- it costs more to get less. The ONLY solution to efficient competition is to beat that competition fair and square, or to move into new areas of production. These new areas open up in direct proportion to the consumer money saved and hence spendable in the new areas, and/or from the foreign demand for goods and services created by the need for the foreigners to recoup the value of the money they earned on their other successful sales. Japanese don't just sell the fruits of their labor to us so they can collect green pieces of paper and magnetic ink. To realize the gain (or even break-even) of their sales, they must turn around and purchase US goods and services. Obviously, their purchases will primarily be in markets other than the ones in which they made their profits. Hence the US labor force shifts from the area in which it was inefficient to the area in which it is more efficient. Trade with foreign countries is always a two way street -- or it wouldn't, it couldn't occur in the first place. The top 200 electronics firms in the US net over $335 billion a year. The top 10 get an average of 37 percent of their revenue from foreign sales. IBM, #1 at $60 billion a year, gets a whopping 57 percent of its revenues from foreign sales. I don't care if the Japanese take over 100% of all US manufacturing (as long as it is not thru the use of military aggression ) the US consumer will still benefit. The Japanese WILL NOT sells us goods UNLESS they can buy back something with the dollars with which we purchase their goods. If they do not sell us stuff because we have nothing they care to purchase, then the internal market will begin to supply the consumer with the goods he can no longer get from Japan. Thus even in this worst case scenario, the US economy survives nicely. ----- The service sector (ignoring the phony way such jobs are labeled) is increasing. HOWEVER, there is no statisical evidence to suggest that the RATE of service sector growth has changed in the last 120 years! A linear trend established between 1880-1930 forecasts our current ratio to within a few percentage points (and all the years inbetween.) Suffice it to say -- Japanese competition CANNOT be causing a growth in service sector employment (unless there is some counter-acting force.) Although the relative number of non-service sector jobs is declining, absolute numbers of such jobs are actually climbing slightly, but are nearly steady since the 1950's. But this makes sense, since as manufacturing efficiencies continue to increase, it takes less workers to produce the same output, or an equal number to produce greater output. One final note, the number of workers earning minimum wage has been declining (their wages have been increasing) linearly since 1981. In 1981, 15 percent of the workers were earning minimum wage. In 1988, only 6.5 percent were. SO WHERE IS THE JAPAN EFFECT? ----- Regardless of the color, culture, or location of his competitors, a specific industry player, always has to be watching over his shoulder. The fact that one player has yellow skin or is greater than X miles away is irrelevant. The efficient use of resources frees up formerly "wasted" resources for uses in other areas. Every increase in productivity enriches the entire world. It is competitive pressure that motivates the search for more efficient methods. Competition (while harsh on the specific players) always benefits the market (consumers) because it allocates the least amount of resources to accomplish the task that the market will bear -- leaving, as I just said, the most resources for use in other areas. Any kind of non-market interference (the government) distorts the natural valuations of the consumers by rewarding non-efficient producers. Resources are diverted (or blocked) from the efficient producers -- thus requiring a greater amount of those resources and, obviously, reducing the amount of resources available for other tasks. American consumers benefit from efficiency and competitive pressures -- no matter the color of skin of the competitor, or the distance X that the competition originates from. Even if the Japanese are taking over the electronics business (a baseless claim, by the way) that is GOOD news for the US for the reasons mentioned above -- more efficient utilization of resources. ----- Although I've only read a review of it, there is a book on the USA/Japan economic competition controversey called, The Third Century: America's Resurgence in the Asian Era, by Joel Kotkin and Yoriko Kishimoto, New York: Crown Publishers, 286 pages, $19.95. According to the review (Reason, March 89) Kotkin, West Coast editor for Inc. magazine, and Kishimoto, trans-Pacific trade consultant, argue that the "Asian challenge" is really the "Asian opportunity" for the USA. They focus on two of the USA's unique strengths -- itsw entrepreneurial culture and its open economic system. Asia and Europe, by contrast, sees few entrepreneurs and large corporations are the rule of the day. Here is the telling statistic -- 90 percent of the 18 million new jobs created in the USA between 1977 and 1985 were created by small companies. Mercantilist Europe LOST 3 million jobs over the same period. They also supposedly claim that MITI's reputation for successfully targeting Japan's sunrise industries is vastly overblown. They have not been able to develop the breakthrough technologies that are the dynamic source of an economies growth -- despite the money they have poured into various such projects. Which leads me to two conclusions: 1.) We do not want to emulate Japan (the working conditions are unacceptable to my tastes!) 2.) We would be better off if Japan were MORE efficient and MORE competitive. ----- The USA has NO economic interest in suppressing foreign competition. There is no way the government can interfer without causing economic loss to MORE of its citizens than the effects of the competition. For instance, the US attempted in the recent past to protect US steel industry -- and took several actions. And, in fact, the gov managed to save 17,000 US steel jobs -- but at a cost of 53,000 other US jobs. It is obvious that the resources costs that went to maintain these inefficient US steel jobs had to be borne by someone. The fact that these 53,000 other jobs were spread out through-out the economy is the same reason you didn't hear media hype about it. The greater evil was much much more diffuse. There is no way that the local senator is going to get camera time crying his eyes out over one or two jobs lost here and there. -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com, john@logajan.mn.org, Phn 612-424-4888, Fax 424-2853 -
farber@linc.cis.upenn.edu (David Farber) (10/01/89)
Would any one care to comment on what the actual benefits to the nation are in having assemply work done here. What percentage of the profits from the sale of the products stays in the usa as opposed to an equivalant product (which does not exist) designed built and sold by an Americal company in the US. Just asking dave David Farber; Prof. of CIS and EE, U of Penn, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6389 Tele: 215-898-9508(off); 215-274-8292 (home); FAX: 215-274-8192; Cellular: 302-740- 1198 "The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- R. P. Feynman
vaso@mips.COM (Vaso Bovan) (10/02/89)
In article <14932@netnews.upenn.edu> farber@linc.cis.upenn.edu (David Farber) writes: > >Would any one care to comment on what the actual benefits to the nation >are in having assemply work done here. What percentage of the >profits from the sale of the products stays in the usa as opposed to >an equivalant product (which does not exist) designed >built and sold by an Americal company in the US. > >Just asking > The "percentage of profits ... that stays in the USA" is irrelevant. The American consumer benefit most, when the product is produced and sold in the most efficient way (ceteris paribus). This is the standard economic argument, and one that is often lost in protectionist noise. "Of course, in a non-full-employment economy, all bets are off." That's a quote from a respected economist; I can't remember who's (Samuelson ?), which expresses the idea that when there are unused assets in an economy, (labor, for instance), it sometimes makes sense to produce at home, (ie in the USA), even if inefficiently. In such cases, the consumer effectively subsidizes the (American) producer, as in Corporate Welfare Bums.