Skip to content
Home » Why US Manufacturing Can Take On China – Financial Times Analysis financial times

Why US Manufacturing Can Take On China – Financial Times Analysis financial times



Visit the Financial Times at: for more market news.

May 4th, 2011: US manufacturing, despite a contraction in its workforce, can still take on China because of increasing productivity. That’s according to a new report by Boston Consulting Group. FT manufacturing editor Peter Marsh explains the report’s implications for the US economy, Europe and China. .

Images related to the topic financial times

Why US Manufacturing Can Take On China - Financial Times Analysis

Why US Manufacturing Can Take On China – Financial Times Analysis

Search related to the topic Why US Manufacturing Can Take On China – Financial Times Analysis

#Manufacturing #China #Financial #Times #Analysis
Why US Manufacturing Can Take On China – Financial Times Analysis
financial times
See all the latest ways to make money online: See more here
See all the latest ways to make money online: See more here

See also  Role of Financial Intermediaries financial intermediaries

18 thoughts on “Why US Manufacturing Can Take On China – Financial Times Analysis financial times”

  1. America and the UK need to make joint ventures, merge supply chains, link chamber of commerce, reimport and re-export together. We need to keep the special relationship special and make canzuk an new prospectus.

  2. western robots working 24/7 is cheaper than Chinese workers in long term

    China standard of living with wages rising will make chinese products less attractive…. we only buy chinese products because they are cheap (only reason)

  3. Gad, how do you break it down for these geniuses:
    In the 1980s and 90s to ensure investor confidence, governments around the world found new and fanciful ways of hiding real unemployment figures. The only unemployment that figures on the books today is the long term, unskilled kind, the kind they rush to get rid off the books around election or budget times by forcing those people into 'employment' programs of some kind or another to hide their numbers away.
    Secondly, the secondary industry infrastructure the U.S. used to have has been either sold off, destroyed or allowed to decay to the point where you need to start all over, at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars if there is any consideration in bringing the millions of jobs lost back to the States, let alone to Australia, Europe or the rest of the world. The main problem with that picture is that no industry would fork out the profit-less money required for it and, most importantly, in the last 40 years, social wealth has been redirected back into the pockets of big business and banks, and no government anywhere would have the required balls, if they even wanted, to tell them "sorry boys, the game is over, no more cookies for you".

  4. If they are talking from the perspective of Keynesian Economics, their timeline seems to be a little off.
    And I did not exactly understand why the speaker failed to mention that despite the growth in the china's pay scale inflation is still an accountable factor (The value of money if translated internationally). and yes America might have the manufacturing capability to rival china but it is not cost effective to do so (China's translation exposure from America).
    Lastly other countries such as India, Bangladesh and Pakistan with similar economics conditions would be the next suitable target to import resources from which unfortunately made the speakers findings seem one dimensional and his work fairly redundant.

  5. If china wants to move up the value added chain then they have to change politically. You can't have a technology intensive economy without proper intellectual protection. China legally is a bit of a mess. The CCP claims that they are cleaning up china yet corruption cases are still widespread among the local cadres. Basically the CCP answes to no one but to themselves and as long as that remains they can claim that they are cleaning up corruption will persist.

  6. 3d printing in its current form is terrible for manufacturing, not only does it take far too much time to make anything by the products can only be made of a weak plastic. Regular printing ink is notoriously expensive, imagine a cartridge of 3D printing materials!

  7. All those industrial centers before used to make this place the heart of the worlds industry. But thanks to sending jobs overseas the cities that once flourished died their.

    It may still be the manufacturing center, but it is a former shadow of itself, and can be a huge industry region for the world if we can get it back up.

  8. That's probably one reason why their quality is so low. Also consider that the Chinese workforce alone is over 2x larger than the whole US population. I guess it boils down to a competitive advantage.

  9. 3X higher? Go out and hire 100 Chinese people and 100 People from the US and put them in mirror image factories. The Chinese would blow us out of the water. It's sad.

  10. @stephentsang2000 Ever hear of the Rust Belt? A huge portion of the US filled with abandoned factories and dying cities like Detroit. Give them a reason to rebuild or construct new factories. The former heart of American Industry would beat again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.