"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Capt. JG
wrote:

If taxes and regulation are reduced, the US becomes more competitive in
the world marketplace for labor and products.

We're already competitive.

Oh yes? You're not competitive on production of foodstuffs or you
wouldn't have tariffs & quotas to keep foreign producion out.

The US is not competitive in anything but military hardware and very
high-tech goods and services these days. And that competitive edge is
slipping daily. On the low-tech end, we lost our competitiveness decades
ago. Much as I'd wish it to be otherwise, that's the fact, Jack.

You're not competitive on production of energy or you wouldn't be
importing oil & gas.

We could be competitive if we'd utilize nuke and alternative, renewable
energy sources properly. But nuke plants are considered taboo, and
alternative energy sources, such as wind and hydroelectric power, have been
decried by environmental extremists to the point of extinction. Only solar
energy is acceptable these days, but there has been little or no
exploitation of that unending resource. Proponents of ethanol as an
alternative to gasoline are making headway, but very slowly. We also have a
decent, if exhaustible, supply of crude, but once again the environmental
extremists have corked that possibility. Coal is virtually a non-issue,
being replaced by cleaner energy sources whenever possible. And our coal
reserves are dwindling, not to mention the hazards of mining the stuff.

You're not competitive on most manufactured goods or you'd be exporting
them, not importing them from China, Korea, Japan, Mexico etc etc.

Yup. Not for a very long time.

You're not competitive in space because you've let a sclerotic
organisation **** away resources & money.

Hogwash. No one is more competitive than the US in space. No one offers
the same level of reliability or dependability as the US. Cheaper
alternatives have cropped up around the globe, but most companies wishing to
launch satellites would utilize the US space program over any other, when
it's up and running. It isn't a perfect program, and I wish it would be run
more efficiently and effectively, but it's still the best there is. Are you
aware of the sheer number of launch failures outside the US? Look it
up--it's staggering.

You're marginal at best in pharmaceuticals; ditto with biotechnology.

Once again we've lost the edge in an area where we should be without peer,
thanks mostly to avarice and a stubbornly sluggish government approval
process. But this is nothing new--it's been this way for a long time.
What's sad is that at least half the world's development of new
pharmaceuticals occurs here, but many fail to reach production, thanks to
the reasons in the first sentence of this paragraph.


So - tell me just what *are* you competitive in? Other than production
of sophisticated armaments, which work wonderfully well for winning
conventional wars, but are useless against popular insurrection?

That pretty well sums it up. I'd add civilian aircraft and other high-tech
goods to that mix. Gulfstream 5 production is running about 4 years behind
demand. There is no better corporate aircraft being built today, and the
buyers know it. And Boeing 757/767/777 aircraft are still very desirable
throughout the world, although the competition from such outfits as Airbus
is brutal.

As for armaments useful against popular insurrection, no one else is doing
much better. The US has a new form of gun, the details of which escape me
at the moment, but it should revolutionize the ability of the individual
soldier to carry huge amounts of firepower without being weighed down to the
point of immobility.

Max