Top 500 U.S. Manufacturing Firms Had 2011 Sales of $5 Trillion, Almost As Much as Japan's GDP
The 500 largest U.S. manufacturing firms operate in 28 different industries. Here are the 10 largest manufacturing industries, based on those firms:
| Rank | 10 Largest U.S. Manufacturing Industries, 2011 | Revenue (Millions) | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Petroleum & Coal Products | $1,274,150 | Exxon, Chrevron, Conoco |
| 2 | Computers & Other Electronic Products | $709,613 | HP, IBM, Apple, Dell |
| 3 | Chemicals | $406,445 | P&G, Dow, DuPont |
| 4 | Pharmaceuticals | $306,076 | J&J, Pfizer, Merck and Co. |
| 5 | Motor Vehicles | $303,540 | Ford, GM, Harley-Davidson |
| 6 | Food | $284,469 | General Mills, Kellogg, Campbell |
| 7 | Aerospace & Defense | $254,126 | Boeing, Lockheed Martin |
| 8 | Electrical Equipment & Appliances | $244,738 | GE, Emerson, Whirlpool |
| 9 | Machinery | $227,481 | Caterpillar, Deere, Xerox |
| 10 | Beverages | $120,356 | Pepsi, Coke, Snapple |
| Total | $4,130,994 |
IndustryWeek recently released its annual ranking of the 500 largest publicly held U.S. manufacturing companies in 2011 based on sales revenue, and the top ten U.S. manufacturing industries (of 28 total industries for the Top 500 companies) are displayed above. Here are some factoids:
1. The combined sales revenue (including global sales) of the top 500 U.S.-based manufacturing firms for 2011 was $5.13 trillion, which was a 12.75% increase over 2010 sales of $4.55 trillion. To put it in perspective, that amount of annual revenue ($5.13 trillion) of the 500 largest U.S.-based manufacturing companies was almost as much as the $5.8 trillion of GDP for the entire economy of Japan in 2011 (world's third largest economy).
2. The sales revenue from the top ten manufacturing industries totaled $4.13 trillion in 2011 (see chart above), which was more than Germany's entire GDP of $3.6 trillion last year.
3. Annual sales of $1.27 billion in 2011 for America's single largest manufacturing industry - petroleum and coal products - was larger than the GDP of both Mexico and South Korea, and larger than the Gross State Product of both Texas and New York.
4. Annual sales of $709 billion for America's second largest manufacturing industry - computers and other electronic products was more than the entire GDP last year of Switzerland ($594 billion) and almost as much as the GDP of Turkey ($797 billion) and the GSP of Florida ($754 billion).
2. The sales revenue from the top ten manufacturing industries totaled $4.13 trillion in 2011 (see chart above), which was more than Germany's entire GDP of $3.6 trillion last year.
3. Annual sales of $1.27 billion in 2011 for America's single largest manufacturing industry - petroleum and coal products - was larger than the GDP of both Mexico and South Korea, and larger than the Gross State Product of both Texas and New York.
4. Annual sales of $709 billion for America's second largest manufacturing industry - computers and other electronic products was more than the entire GDP last year of Switzerland ($594 billion) and almost as much as the GDP of Turkey ($797 billion) and the GSP of Florida ($754 billion).
5. The top ten largest U.S. manufacturing companies (Exxon, Chevron, Conoco, GE, GM, Ford, H-P, IBM, Valero, and Proctor and Gamble) had combined revenues of $1.57 trillion, almost as much as Canada's GDP in 2011 of $1.75 trillion.
MP: The comparisons above help put the enormous size of the U.S. manufacturing sector into perspective and demonstrate that American manufacturing is not withering and disappearing, but thriving, expanding and prospering. In terms of profits, the American manufacturing sector will have its best year ever in 2011. Based on data currently available through the third quarter, the U.S. manufacturing corporations are on track to earn more than $600 billion in profits for 2011, which will be a new record high, and double the profits in both 2008 ($266 billion) and 2009 ($286 billion), and 36% above the pre-recession level of $442 billion in 2007. American manufacturing is alive and well.
67 Comments:
And the U.S. has many powerful brand names that command market power.
more proof than Obama is killing jobs, eh?
Those are some pretty amazing numbers when put into a perspective like that.
more proof that Obama regs are killing our economy?
;-)
Mark, I always appreciate the excellent data this blog provides. I interpret this particlular set of data a little differently.
IMO, the data supports well the argument that U.S. managed companies are thriving. But it does not exactly bolster the argument that U.S. based manufacturing is thriving. That's because the American companies which make up these industries derive much of their revenue from products manufatured in other countries.
I believe U.S.-based manufacturing is thriving, and the U.S. manufacturing GDP figures show this to be true. Most U.S. plants are owned by U.S. companies. But let's not forget the huge contribution to the U.S. economy of such foreign manufacturers as Toyota, BP, GlaxoSmithKline, ThyssenKrupp, and Unilever.
The direct investment in the U.S. by thousands of foreign multi-nationals provides millions of jobs. That such investment contributes to the so-called "trade deficit" should make it clear how meaningless that measure really is.
Larry G,
This data shows that U.S. managed manufacturing companies are thriving. Many are doing so after moving their plants to nations with a more reasonable regulatory environment. Such offshoring of pollution (and jobs) has been going on for decades. So I do not blame only the Obama administration.
Unintended Consequences of U. S. Environmental Protection Laws
http://www.crgraphs.com/2011/09/manufacturing-graphs.html
as graph 2 here shows (from fed data) manufacturing is still 9% below the 2007 level making this the slowest recovery in manufacturing in any recession since ww2.
so sorry larry, but your non sequitors are as inaccurate as they are irrelevant.
we are experiencing the slowest employment recovery since ww2 by a massive margin as well.
i am trying to figure out if you are being deliberately ridiculous and just baiting people or if you really just have no understanding of economics at all, but you comments are so far off topic and so badly related to the data at hand (and so deeply contradicted by the relevant data) that it's difficult to tell.
morganovich: "manufacturing is still 9% below the 2007 level making this the slowest recovery in manufacturing in any recession since ww2."
I looked at those graphs, but could not find one showing manufacturing was 9% lower than 2007. Can you point out which one has that number?
I did see that the graph " Industrial Production as Percent of Previous Peak" shows Oct-2011 to be 6.5% below the previous peak.
The Federal Reserve Table 4 Industrial Production Indexes shows that Dec-2011 was still 4.7% below the 2007 index. I assume that's a complete 2007 index number rather than the peak month within 2007.
re: baiting... heavens no...
but if I see inconsistencies.. then I point them out.
I have never been exactly clear on what specific regulations are "killing" our economy much less any quantifiable data on a per regulation per industry effect.
and how would you differentiate between a bad economy that cratered before Obama became Prez and any policies he might have implemented (that I've yet to see articulated in specifics).
As far as I can tell many if not most of the regs were online before Obama became Prez and the complaint is that he should remove them because Bush did not...
which is pretty convoluted reasoning from the conservatives if you think about it...
I've yet to see a convincing manifesto that Obama Regs are "killing our economy".
that's not baiting...right?
The dollar is helping exporters and US manufacturers; let us hope the dollar becomes an even better ally in the future.
A quibble with Industry Week:
IBM is not mainly a computer manufacturer.
How does IBM describe itself?
"The company creates business value for clients and solves business problems through integrated solutions that leverage
information technology and deep knowledge of business processes... These solutions draw from an industry-leading portfolio of consulting, delivery and implementation services, enterprise software, systems and financing."
"Integrated solutions" is clearly enterprise wide and in the category of services. The big iron IBM computers(old IBM), in their Systems and Technology sector, accounted for 18% of co. revenues in 2010.
Taking IBM out of Industry Week's manufacturing category, would decrease U.S. Manufacturing by over $100 billion dollars.
"but if I see inconsistencies.. then I point them out."
No, you work backwards from "how can I defend Obama?" You choose not to see the very clear line between the most anti-business President since FDR and the consequences of his destructive agenda.
re: " ..the most anti-business President since FDR and the consequences of his destructive agenda. "
well.. no.. I'm just pointing out that we seem to have a robust recovering economy DESPITE what you say about the "destructive" agenda.
and he didn't tank our economy, Bush did - but no one calls Bush the "most destructive " even though he's the one that really messed up the economy.
the big hit on Obama seems to be he's not fixing it fast enough but the figures that MP is posting show a different story.
I think Obama is the best thing to hit the country since Bush... you gotta admit...
;-)
Bush and the Republicans were an unmitigated disaster for the economy.
Buddy Pacifico: "Taking IBM out of Industry Week's manufacturing category, would decrease U.S. Manufacturing by over $100 billion dollars."
Again, as I tried to point out above, Industry Week's article is extremely misleading. The magazine counts as "U.S. Manufacturing" all the revenues earned by so-called "manufacturing" companies headquartered in the U.S.
You correctly point out that IBM is primarily a service company. In fact, much of the "manufacturing" revenue earned by Industry Week's multinationals is actually service revenue. HP, Boeing, and GE are among the "manufacturing" companies which earn billions in annual service revenues.
...service revenue is revenue though..right?
IBM pretty much shows that much of our "manufacturing" is "knowledge-based".
larry-
was that intended to be a joke?
the only inconsistencies are in your logic.
you take a bunch of set figures that show nothing at all about growth and employment, then make claims about the economy and employment?
if you are looking for inconsistencies, i'd start with your own thinking.
it's a mess.
"well.. no.. I'm just pointing out that we seem to have a robust recovering economy DESPITE what you say about the "destructive" agenda."
Utterly ridiculous. By what standard is this recovery "robust?" This is the slowest "recovery" since the Great Depression.
"and he didn't tank our economy, Bush did - but no one calls Bush the "most destructive " even though he's the one that really messed up the economy."
Alot of Bush's policies were destructive. Obama has magnified Bush's worst economic traits exponentially. What do you think Bush did to tank our economy, specifically? Too much debt? GSE's run amuck? How does that compare to Obama now?
"the big hit on Obama seems to be he's not fixing it fast enough..."
No, the "hit on Obama" is that he's an ignoramus with a knack for doing the opposite of what needs to be done. He couldn't fix the economy if he knew how, in part because he never ran anything but his mouth. We are talking about a man who thinks ATM's and the internet create unemployment, but unemployment checks create employment.
One other thing I'd like to clarify, it's absurd to think a President can "fix" an economy all by himself. He can, however, mess things up worse a la Obama.
jet-
sorry, CR used to let you link to individual graphs, but they don;t any more.
try this:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/01/industrial-production-increased-04-in.html
and scroll down to the second graph "industrial production" and click to enlarge.
those indexes are set to 100 for 2007.
current manufacturing (red line) looks to be 91-92.
pretty much every other recession saw a full recovery by 2.5 years after the trough. (though maybe not 2000, that's close to eyeball).
there is little question that the US manufacturing sector is large, but i think that mark falls into the trap of assuming large % moves after a huge % decline are indicative of health and a strong recovery.
measuring the recovery in terms of time to reach the earlier peak, this is the weakest since ww2.
Morg - the numbers are looking good for manufacturing.
the jobs picture is not as robust but we know that employers are using more and more automation and overtime rather than hiring new full-time employees.
isn't that a fair assessment?
my original comment was that if Obama is "destroying" the economy how come the actual economic numbers show otherwise?
George Bush killed far more jobs than Obama - if you use the same fair criteria in judging the two.
Is Obama any more (or less) responsible for killing jobs than Bush was or is there a double standard in play?
It certainly appears that we lost many, many more jobs at the end of the Bush term than in the Obama term.
I personally don't think either one of them has THAT much to do with the economy but if we are going to blame Obama then I think we should use the same criteria for Bush also.
Much of the stuff that MP posts here on the economy points UP - not down.
Is that because of Obama's "job killing regulations"?
it's a slowly recovering economy that's true but the width and depth of the recession was the worst in this country since the great depression and Obama caused none of that...
fair is fair.. use the same criteria to judge both Prezs....
Under Bush - our economy cratered. What is that Obama's fault and not Bushes?
Obama walked in to the aftermath of a recession that was the worst since the great depression before any new regs were even discussed.
I'm just pointing out that the economy is recovering despite the rhetoric about "job killing" policies (which are never really articulated anyhow).
" No, the "hit on Obama" is that he's an ignoramus with a knack for doing the opposite of what needs to be done. He couldn't fix the economy if he knew how,"
but the economy IS recovering ... and yes.. from the worst recession since the great depression.
George Bush started out with a robust economy and a balanced budget and he destroyed both.
you say how did he do it?
I ask you .. how did Obama "destroy" anything?
I don't see the proof and the evidence that MP is posting is showing otherwise.
the best you can claim is that the recover is _slow_.
well.. YES.. it was damn near a depression ...that George Bush handed to Obama...what would you expect - a fast recovery?
Do you think George Bush would have done better than Obama?
ha ha ha... GB did not know his head from a hole in the ground and yet he was supposed to be the "conservative" who knew how the economy should work.. and he screwed it up royally...
much, much worse than Obama... under Obama the economy is recovering...under Bush..it cratered.
fess up Guy!
Larry G: "IBM pretty much shows that much of our "manufacturing" is "knowledge-based".
NO!!!
Inclusion of IBM only shows that Industry Week is too lazy to get real numbers on manufacturing.
Plants operating in the U.S. - whether owned by U.S. firms or foreign firms - produce many, many billions of automobiles, aircraft, gasoline, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, chemicals, processed food, beverages, leather goods, and much more. Even with the decline since 2007, U.S. manufacturing of durable and non-durable goods remains extremely strong.
Jet - your point is that "service" is not manufacturing - right?
I get it.
Larry G: "employers are using more and more automation and overtime rather than hiring new full-time employees."
Employers have been automating tasks for over a century, yet total employment kept going up and up. What has changed is that Obamacare, environmental regulations, and the explosion of federal spending have made employers damned scared about future costs. Add to that the coziness between labor and Obama and it is not surprising at all that employers have put a hold on expansion in the U.S.
"Morg - the numbers are looking good for manufacturing."
larry-
no they are not. they are down 8-9% from the peak 2.5 years after the trough, a tie in which a full recovery would have been made in every other recession since ww2.
you could not be more wrong in your claim.
so no, it's nothing like a fair assessment. it's a total distortion of the facts.
this makes the rest of your comment irrelevant as it's all predicated on bad claims about reality.
"but the economy IS recovering ... and yes.. from the worst recession since the great depression."
When you stop falling, you hit the floor. We are bouncing along the bottom with nothing to show for it really, except $4 trillion more in debt. Yeah, the economy is trying to recover in spite of President "ATM's destroy jobs" Obama.
"I ask you .. how did Obama "destroy" anything?"
He rejected the Keystone Pipeline today, and has declared off-limits huge portions of the outer continental shelf for drilling. Any clues how that might hinder job creation, Larry? Hiring stalled right after Obamacare passed, you really can't put 2 and 2 together to figure out the relation? His stimulus sucked a trillion dollars out of the private economy to mostly benefit his govt parasite constituents. Is that healthy for the economy? He's made the debt far far worse with nothing to offer other than "tax the rich."
Probably the most damaging thing is the uncertainty. The industries that aren't part of Obama's crony empire have no idea what sort of body blows are in store for them if this idiot gets another term with no worries about re-election.
"well.. YES.. it was damn near a depression ...that George Bush handed to Obama...what would you expect - a fast recovery?"
this is so stupid for so many reasons it's difficult to know where to start.
first off, the president does NOT control the economy. at best he steers a a bit.
second, oh, you mean like the huge asset bust that bush inherited? he took on a recession too, but it turned out quite mild despite the largest bubble in a generation bursting.
third, you really have no idea what drives business confidence, do you?
pick up amity schlaes excellent book "the forgotten man" about the depression and the federal policies that destroyed business confidence. it's full of primary source material and is very well researched and supported.
having read that, you will immediately realize that obambi is using the FDR playbook that created the great depression.
up regulatory burden, interfere in capital markets and business, threaten and vilify capitalists, look to change all manner of laws that deeply effect business (like the EPA), interfere in markets (like GM and greentech), propose wild new federal programs (obamacare, wildly incresed duration for unemployment) and generally up the level of uncertainty to a point where no one wants to invest. then run massive deficits that crowd out the private economy in the mistaken keynsian belief that you can "prime the pump" that way.
a president cannot make the economy grow, but he can sure derail the growth by getting in everyone's way.
you clearly have no grounding at all in business, but i speak to dozens of business a week. never before did they want to talk politics. now they all do. it's what they all fear and a huge risk everyone is trying to deal with.
if you cannot see how damaging these policies are, it's because you have no idea how wealth and prosperity are created and you really ought to educate yourself before making such ill founded and embarrassing claims.
also note: such recovery as we have had has been driven primarily by deficit spending, not anything sustainable.
the savings rate in the US has dropped to 3.5% which is dangerously low. consumer credit balances are cranking up again at the same time that we see a massive uptick (60% increase for the lower earners) of people raiding their IRA's, 401k's and other savings vehicles.
that's not recovery. it's breaking the piggybank to live beyond your means.
so, not only is this recovery anemic, but it's also setting us up for another worse set of problems in the near future.
re: " Employers have been automating tasks for over a century, yet total employment kept going up and up. What has changed is that Obamacare, environmental regulations, and the explosion of federal spending have made employers damned scared about future costs. Add to that the coziness between labor and Obama and it is not surprising at all that employers have put a hold on expansion in the U.S.:
but the sales and profits are up... recovering... and why should any employer hire any more people than they need if they can increase sales and profits without more employees?
Are you saying they'd hire more people than they actually need if regulations, ObamaCare, etc were not affecting them?
what's changed is that computers have revolutionized manufacturing IMHO - not only here in the US but worldwide - even workers in places like China, India, are losing their jobs to computers.
This was actually predicted by "futurists" who said that we'd ultimately reach the point where computers would display more and more of the workforce in manufacturing and push us towards a service economy.
ObamaCare has not really taken effect and if that were really true - we'd see a tremendous surge in offshore manufacturing with cheaper labor...
are we seeing that - for the things the US is manufacturing that is showing the better numbers?
the things that are going offshore are the things that want cheap labor and cannot easily automate/computerize.
this issue will never be solved until Obama is gone .. no matter what the truth is.
In terms of spending. When Obama came into office, we had an annual - structural deficit of 1.5 trillion.
Obama has not added to that structural deficit.
He did spend some stimulus but that was one-shot.
the problem is that if he does not cut the spending that debt will balloon.. but again. recognize that he did not create the annual deficit and has not added to it but as long as he does not cut it..it will continue to balloon the debt.
So we're blaming him for not cutting the deficit that Bush created - and note that the most vocal of those who say we have a spending problem have not provided a meaningful alternative budget, in part, because they do not want to cut DOD or National Defense which have doubled since 2000 and are now as large as the amount we take in - in income taxes.
We cannot balance the budget with cuts only to entitlements. It's impossible.
so the opposition has advocated cutting entitlements then cutting taxes even lower in hopes that supply-side will boost revenues to pay for DOD/ND.
this is what Bush did and look what happened...
at the end of his term - revenues had cratered and a structural 1.5 trillion deficit because they cut taxes and did not cut spending - because they said that by cutting taxes we'd gain revenues.
did not happen.
instead we got the 1.5 trillion ANNUAL deficit.
this is Obama's fault?
" He rejected the Keystone Pipeline today, and has declared off-limits huge portions of the outer continental shelf for drilling"
but tremendous increases in domestic oil and gas has occurred..correct?
Larry G: "Jet - your point is that "service" is not manufacturing - right?
I get it."
No, that's not my point, and no, you don't get it.
" Hiring stalled right after Obamacare passed, you really can't put 2 and 2 together to figure out the relation?"
but ObamaCare does not kick in until 2014, right?
Morganovich,
You may have already read it, but check out Folsom's book on the same subject, if you haven't. I think he did a better job of conveying the corruption and incompetence of FDR's administration. Schlaes quotes him quite a bit in "Forgotten Man", if I remember correctly.
" Probably the most damaging thing is the uncertainty. The industries that aren't part of Obama's crony empire have no idea what sort of body blows are in store for them if this idiot gets another term with no worries about re-election. "
what exactly are you talking about?
be specific.
we have increased oil and gas and manufacturing..and lower unemployment..
how can that be if his policies are killing the country?
" better job of conveying the corruption and incompetence of FDR's administration."
ya'll are talking about something that happened 60+ years ago..
I thought at least you'd talk about Carter or Reagan or Bush I or Clinton...but nope.. 60+ years ago.
tsk tsk.. this is not about the current world.. it's about ideology.
Larry G: "what's changed is that computers have revolutionized manufacturing IMHO"
Computers have been revolutionizing manufacturing for about 60 years. Yet worlwide and U.S. employment kept going up and up.
Futurists have been asinine predictions for many centuries, most of them gloomy ones. Yet employment kept growing, living standards kept increasing, life expectancy kept increasing, and the number of people living hand-to-mouth kept going down. Only when government interferes with freedom - especially free markets - do those trends temporarily stop.
Obama - and the damned fools who believe in him - are the biggest threat to continued prosperity in my lifetime.
" Only when government interferes with freedom - especially free markets - do those trends temporarily stop."
worldwide?
do you thing the rest of the world has gone on ahead and we have fallen behind?
when do you get your ideological worldview under control guy?
If other countries were passing us by in comparison - you'd have a potent point but that's not the case.
and it's not only computers Jet.. it's the internet.. cellular communications.. GPS, etc... all these technologies are revolutionizing economies - worldwide.
the rants against Obama just do not pass the smell test.
the economy numbers are up across the board despite your anti-Obam, anti-govt rants.
"what's changed is that computers have revolutionized manufacturing IMHO - not only here in the US but worldwide - even workers in places like China, India, are losing their jobs to computers."
You are spouting the same idiocies as Obama!
"but ObamaCare does not kick in until 2014, right?"
No, you idiot. It's phased in gradually, but already destroying jobs. Markets are forward looking.
"we have increased oil and gas and manufacturing..and lower unemployment.."
What is the price of gas now, Larry? I suggest you take a course on supply and demand. See also "opportunity cost."
I've already pointed out the stupidity of your "structural deficit" claims numerous times. But like Benji, you just repeat the same nonsense over and over.
"..ya'll are talking about something that happened 60+ years ago.."
Yeah, it's called "learning from history." This is a concept with which you are obviously unfamiliar.
" "but ObamaCare does not kick in until 2014, right?"
No, you idiot. It's phased in gradually, but already destroying jobs. Markets are forward looking."
a tax on tanning beds has "killed" jobs? lord man.
I think they should tax the hell out of tanning beds to pay for all the skin cancer these idiots are going to get and they no doubt will want taxpayers to pay for their skin cancer since they don't have insurance, eh?
"we have increased oil and gas and manufacturing..and lower unemployment.."
What is the price of gas now, Larry? I suggest you take a course on supply and demand. See also "opportunity cost."
but you said he was killing jobs by regulations .. and if that's true why is gas and oil exploding?
if Obama was killing exploration, we'd not have record gas and oil production.... right?
the price of gas? Obama boosted the price? ha ha ha. I think it is the folks getting the gas and oil who said it would reduce our dependency on foreign energy and they turned around and exported to the highest bidder keeping supplies tight in this country.
I think you're getting DESPERATE here using these examples...
"I've already pointed out the stupidity of your "structural deficit" claims numerous times. But like Benji, you just repeat the same nonsense over and over."
the truth does not lie though.
Bush turned over a 1.5 annual deficit and while it's true that Obama has not reduced it..he did not create it nor has he added to it in an substantial way. In fact the deficit is reducing slightly.
Bush and the Republicans came up with this cockamamie plan to cut taxes to generate more revenues and the result was a budget busting deficit that they handed to the next President and now those same idiots argue to keep the taxes reduced - which will guarantee the deficit will continue - and you blame Obama for this?
Guy - the dumb-ass GOP got us into this mess..and you can't fix stupid when stupid does not even acknowledge that their prior policies caused the deficits.
Obama could/should have more guts to tackle the deficit - that's true - but you're blaming him for not fixing what Bush and the GOP broke... and the GOP refuses to try to fix it by cutting DOD..which doubled under Bush.
so what can you do when the idiot GOP and Bush created the deficit and now block any attempts to reduce it?
You want Obama out and the GOP back in control to go back to Bush policies?
lord. lord.
to keep this on track:
"Top 500 U.S. Manufacturing Firms Had 2011 Sales of $5 Trillion, Almost As Much as Japan's GDP"
blame Obama....
larry-
i'm going to be totally honest here.
these discussions with you are a total waste of time.
you deliberately distort the facts over and over, turn it into bizarre, tangential equations, then run it through logical fallacy and made up facts to make unsupportable claims over and over.
i have been making a good faith effort over the last 2 days to engage you openly and on the issues, but you seem incapable of participating in such a discussion.
you are just a fountain of illogic, non sequitor, and bizarre rabbit holes.
i for one am done. i'm not getting any benefit from this.
good luck to you.
"I have never been exactly clear on what specific regulations are "killing" our economy much less any quantifiable data on a per regulation per industry effect."
Nor has it been clear to you that there is any quantifiable benefit to increasing stringent regulations on a per regulation per industry basis.
Go back and follow the link Jet Beagle graciously provided for you. Then *read* it. Then, *understand* what you have read.
"and how would you differentiate between a bad economy that cratered before Obama became Prez and any policies he might have implemented (that I've yet to see articulated in specifics)."
Strawman part 1.
"As far as I can tell many if not most of the regs were online before Obama became Prez and the complaint is that he should remove them because Bush did not..."
Strawman part 2.
"which is pretty convoluted reasoning from the conservatives if you think about it..."
Meaningless statement based on strawman.
"I've yet to see a convincing manifesto that Obama Regs are "killing our economy"."
Strawman part 3.
No one has mentioned "Obama Regs" except you. Why are you battling your own creation?
Does ,nothing embarrass you?
"a tax on tanning beds has "killed" jobs? lord man."
Of course, you have nothing to say about the also mentioned medical device manufacturers laying people off.
"I think they should tax the hell out of tanning beds to pay for all the skin cancer these idiots are going to get.."
And you will no doubt destroy jobs in the industry, as Obamacare is doing to other industries. That's the point.
"if Obama was killing exploration, we'd not have record gas and oil production.... right?"
God. Are you mentally capable of understanding that shutting down drilling and pipelines costs jobs? Do you seriously dispute this? Obama has zero to do with current production, other than it would be higher if not for his policies.
"I think it is the folks getting the gas and oil who said it would reduce our dependency on foreign energy and they turned around and exported to the highest bidder keeping supplies tight in this country."
It's called a "global market."
"the price of gas? Obama boosted the price? ha ha ha."
You credit him for the "drop" in unemployment, the "recovery," energy production increases, among other things. Well, the price of gas when Obama took over was avg $1.79. Today, it's about $3.50.
"the truth does not lie though."
Neither does it come from your lips.
"Bush and the Republicans came up with this cockamamie plan to cut taxes to generate more revenues and the result was a budget busting deficit...."
The deficit in 2007 was around $170 billion, several years after the Bush tax cuts. THe trillion dollar deficits didn't happen until 2009, a yr Bush had little to do with budget wise.
"so what can you do when the idiot GOP and Bush created the deficit and now block any attempts to reduce it?"
Yeah, what can poor Obama do? He's only the President of the United States who blew out the budget, added another unaffordable entitlement, and stomped on revenues while his party had almost unprecedented power for two years.
"you can't fix stupid when stupid does not even acknowledge that their prior policies caused the deficits."
The spending on failed liberal programs caused the deficits. Which ones is Obama cutting? Which ones is he critical?
" No one has mentioned "Obama Regs" except you. Why are you battling your own creation?"
well.. no they don't bring them up in the threads that say: "Top 500 U.S. Manufacturing Firms Had 2011 Sales of $5 Trillion, Almost As Much as Japan's GDP".
they get brought up in the posts that say: "Obama Rejects 20k Jobs, aka Keystone Pipeline".
I only pointed out that you can find individual examples - actually in most administration - but the bigger picture is that manufacturing is improving.. so is gas & oil exploration.. unemployment is going down.. and in general things are looking better.
just keeping the narrative honest here and it's a real bear at times.
"..so is gas & oil exploration.. "
Explain why Obama should get any credit for this? He put enormous areas of the US off limits for drilling. He rejected Keystone. He follows the Democrat party line on drilling in ANWR. His illegal drilling moratorium cost thousands of jobs and sent rigs to more hospitable climates.
"a tax on tanning beds has "killed" jobs? lord man."
Of course, you have nothing to say about the also mentioned medical device manufacturers laying people off.
a 2.3% tax ? this is job killing?
you're kidding right?
"I think they should tax the hell out of tanning beds to pay for all the skin cancer these idiots are going to get.."
And you will no doubt destroy jobs in the industry, as Obamacare is doing to other industries. That's the point.
given the fact that tanning beds are the equivalent to smoking cigarettes and tremendous health care costs will be foisted on others... they ought to discourage it.
"if Obama was killing exploration, we'd not have record gas and oil production.... right?"
God. Are you mentally capable of understanding that shutting down drilling and pipelines costs jobs? Do you seriously dispute this? Obama has zero to do with current production, other than it would be higher if not for his policies."
he has not shut down the ones that are expanding... would you grant that? so the big hit here is that it would be "better"?
see one view asserts that he is killing the industry but the other view says that he is much more selective and the industry as a whole is very, very healthy.
so the big "job killing" hit is that it "could be better".
okay... I'll give you that if you agree that he has not killed all jobs and in fact.. the industry is doing quite well.
""I think it is the folks getting the gas and oil who said it would reduce our dependency on foreign energy and they turned around and exported to the highest bidder keeping supplies tight in this country."
It's called a "global market.""
I agree..no dispute on that except they promote their activities as "helping" the nation and their activities are more about wealth for investors. that's fine.. just don't claim it's patriotic.
"the price of gas? Obama boosted the price? ha ha ha."
You credit him for the "drop" in unemployment, the "recovery," energy production increases, among other things. Well, the price of gas when Obama took over was avg $1.79. Today, it's about $3.50."
and what exactly has he done to cause it?
"the truth does not lie though."
Neither does it come from your lips.
"Bush and the Republicans came up with this cockamamie plan to cut taxes to generate more revenues and the result was a budget busting deficit...."
The deficit in 2007 was around $170 billion, several years after the Bush tax cuts. THe trillion dollar deficits didn't happen until 2009, a yr Bush had little to do with budget wise.
but he did.. the deficit he created was embedded in that budget. there was no new annual spending.. it was virtually all existing spending carried from one year to the next - much of it the doubled DOD budget.
"so what can you do when the idiot GOP and Bush created the deficit and now block any attempts to reduce it?"
Yeah, what can poor Obama do? He's only the President of the United States who blew out the budget, added another unaffordable entitlement, and stomped on revenues while his party had almost unprecedented power for two years.
do you mean the Prescription Drug entitlement that that idiot Bush added when he had both houses of Congress and could have reformed health care and preempted ObamaCare?
" unprecedented power for two years"
what about the 6 before that ?
"you can't fix stupid when stupid does not even acknowledge that their prior policies caused the deficits."
The spending on failed liberal programs caused the deficits. Which ones is Obama cutting? Which ones is he critical?
tell me what the failed liberal programs are .....that Obama added that has resulted in the 1.5 trillion deficit.
truth here.. be honest.
the LAST LIBERAL entitlement program was Medicare Part D which the idiot GOP passed at 3am in the morning with TOm Delay threatening members of his own idiot party.
Bush and the idiot GOP totally screwed up the budget and the economy and then try to blame it on the "last two years" when Bush was still in charge and still able to veto and it totally ignores the damage they did in the prior 6 years.
The deficit came from the Bush GOP years.
You cannot double the DOD/National Defense budget and cut taxes and claim that it was "bad luck".
@morg
your basic premise here is that the economy "could be better".
I point out to you that the economy is improving as MP clearly is documenting.
You claim that this is in spite of Obama.
That's fine. I don't agree.
I think Bush and the GOP did far more damage and it was seriously underestimated as to the level of damage by the current Prez but I do not buy that he is killing the recovery. The evidence is otherwise and that's what I point out here.
Could it be better? Yup. Do I wince when I see Obama's tendencies towards taxing?
yes.
do I like Obama's pro entitlement leanings? No.
is he wrong on the Keystone Pipeline?
from a political point of view - it is damaging... especially in the eyes of independents.
does the President really have much impact on the economy?
on this - you cannot have it both ways.
If you think they do - then you must acknowledge what a mess Bush created ...AND you must AT LEAST ADMIT that when it says that 500 US manufacturing firms are coming back strong - that it's not an accident but you take the opposite approach.
You say.. the manufacturing comeback does not count because it "could have been better".
and you say my thinking is illogical.
how can the economy be improving but it's still Obama's fault that it is bad?
it does not compute?
" Explain why Obama should get any credit for this? "
explain why he allowed the oil/gas exploration that is succeeding to o forward if he is against exploration.
"but the sales and profits are up... recovering... and why should any employer hire any more people than they need if they can increase sales and profits without more employees?"
I'm sure that in his next comment morganovich will admit defeat, and bow to your superior intellect, as it's obvious that you are far more knowledgeable on business and economics than he is.
LMFAO!!
morganovich: "having read that, you will immediately realize that obambi is using the FDR playbook that created the great depression."
Ahh, I must respectfully disagree. :)
morganovich: "larry-
i'm going to be totally honest here.
these discussions with you are a total waste of time."
Agree completely.
"but the sales and profits are up... recovering... and why should any employer hire any more people than they need if they can increase sales and profits without more employees?"
I'm sure that in his next comment morganovich will admit defeat, and bow to your superior intellect, as it's obvious that you are far more knowledgeable on business and economics than he is...
I don't dispute Morg's knowledge but I debate some of his thinking.
I do not think any employer is going to hire more people than they actually need and the world has changed a lot in terms of how many full time employees you have verses part time.. easily laid off folks.
this started some time ago as employers started to look at the longer term costs of retired workers who have benefits.
Completely independent of govt - they realized that in a modern economy - they could not guarantee defined benefits on 30 year and longer horizons so they went to defined contributions.
The Feds did that also with their employees - not recently - but back in the 80's.
it's become more and more apparent that a smart business does not hire more permanent people than they think they can keep over the longer run and in this day and time.. companies come and go in a much faster tempo than before.
companies like IBM, GM, even Microsoft, Google and Apple - know that changes in the market are much more dynamic and volatile than 20, 30 years ago.
I would submit that a number of factors like this that extend way beyond the "uncertainties" of govt policies are in play.
Blaming the changes in employment policies on one Prez is an ideological tactic but not the reality of the 21st century.
companies around the globe now see employees as not 30 year loyal workers.. but human capital that has to be downsized in order to survive at times.
Obama did not cause this to happen on a worldwide basis...
the day of the 30year employee is one and, in fact, the day of the permanent employee is less and less a firm feature of companies in general.
"ya'll are talking about something that happened 60+ years ago.."
And is happening almost blow by blow again, although people who have little knowledge of history, such as yourself, don't understand the similarities. People are no different today than they were 70 years ago.
"tsk tsk.. this is not about the current world.. it's about ideology."
Ahh. Larry, out of responses, accuses others of relying on ideology or theory.
" Ahh. Larry, out of responses, accuses others of relying on ideology or theory"
but I did not see this argument when Bush was passing the Medicare Part D entitlement, why?
why do ya'll "skip" Presidencies on these things?
"and it's not only computers Jet.. it's the internet.. cellular communications.. GPS, etc... all these technologies are revolutionizing economies - worldwide."
internet.. cellular communications.. GPS, etc.. = computers
What do you think all that stuff is? Get a clue.
larry-
this is my final example for you to show you just how bad your thinking is and how mired in illogic and misunderstanding your position is:
"how can the economy be improving but it's still Obama's fault that it is bad?
it does not compute?"
let's say you are sick with the flu and have a fever of 103.
you will get better left to you own devices.
but lets say i, the quack doctor, keep bleeding you and scalding you with hot irons to remove the foul humors. (this was once accepted medial practice)
after 3 days, when you'd probably be better all by yourself, you are still very sick because of my care.
but you fever has somehow managed to drop from 103 to 102.
are you going to now argue that my treatments have made you better?
that's the precise logical equivalent of the argument you are making about obama.
you are literally arguing that my hanging onto you back makes you run well because you are still managing to move.
the fact that you are unable to see this is precisely what makes these discussions with you so pointless and interminable.
consider this a good faith attempt at a useful parting gift for you.
you need to learn to apply basic logic to order your thoughts or your opinions are going to remain a miasma of nonsense.
the question you asked is so fundamentally ridiculous that i really don't know where to go with you. to discuss ideas with someone who is unable to use basic logic and therefore is never on topic and perpetually erecting insane straw men is essentially impossible.
so again, good luck, but i am really out of energy to spend on trying to explain basic thinking to you, much less economics and business.
there is little question that the US manufacturing sector is large, but i think that mark falls into the trap of assuming large % moves after a huge % decline are indicative of health and a strong recovery.
measuring the recovery in terms of time to reach the earlier peak, this is the weakest since ww2.
Mark has a tendency to cherry pick any data that supports his natural optimism. While I have nothing against optimism I prefer economists to be a bit more realistic and look at the bigger picture.
@morg I understand you POV but you it's purely an opinion. You have no real evidence of that view.
You could make that statement about ANY Prez during any economic time period.
I don't dispute your feelings but when you say logic or evidence is involved.. it's clearly not.
That is what I do dispute here in CD - the constant "bad Obama" at the same time that MP is posting info about most economic indicators improving.
you say.. it would improve better if Obama was not so bad.. but I don't see the data.. the evidence... must the unsupported claim.
re: " Mark has a tendency to cherry pick any data that supports his natural optimism. While I have nothing against optimism I prefer economists to be a bit more realistic and look at the bigger picture."
Oh Contraire!
MP posts an equal number of "Obama is killing the economy" threads also.
my point is that the two appear to be at time diametrically opposed.
the main argument here seems to be that the economy is not good even if it is improving and it would do better with someone other than Obama...
there's no evidence mind you.. just what people say...
you can't even defend against it because no matter how many metrics that one would show - the answer is always going to be - "but it would be better".
that's not objective at all..
it's just blatantly biased.
larry g makes the somewhat bizzare claim: "and he didn't tank our economy, Bush did - but no one calls Bush the "most destructive " even though he's the one that really messed up the economy"...
Yeah, our economy was tanked when gasoline and unemployment were half of what it is now...
No doubt you can thank your fellow travelers who took over the House and Senate in '07 for their extrodinary efforts to improve the economy...
This chart is poo-poo. Number 2 (pun intended) on the chart is computers and electronics and mentions IBM, HP, Apple, and Dell as examples. While the companies are based in the US, the peeps that actually put this stuff together are all in foreign lands. Stuff labeled "made in China" do not count as US jobs. Sure Apple and the others do much of their design here in the US, but the parts are made, assembled, and packed elsewhere. Apple, in fact, subs out all their manufacturing, so I do not think I would consider them a "Manufacturing Firm" at all. They're a "design and marketing firm" at best. Don't get me wrong, I love (and own long) Apple. I'm surrounded by their products as I write this on an iMac. But lets be honest - if you only farm out the manufacturing to another company, are you really a manufacturer?
Given this issue with this chart, I'm hesitant to believe any part of it.
It's a little funny when folks start assigning blame for a particular economic situation to a particular president. The truth is, the biggest damage they do is in that which never appears. It's hard to measure, but it's true. The bigger the government gets, the more people rely on it to have income "redistributed" their way, and the worse the regulations get, the fewer people are willing to start a business to begin with. It's not whether Bush or Obama is worse. They're both equally bad, because neither one made reducing the burden of government a part of his agenda. It's the only thing any President should do. With the government costing about $3 trillion and revenues around half or so of that, anything but massive government shrinkage is totally unjustified. Not hard to figure out.
"I would submit that a number of factors like this that extend way beyond the "uncertainties" of govt policies are in play."
Factors like what, Larry, you haven't named any.
" this started some time ago as employers started to look at the longer term costs of retired workers who have benefits.
Completely independent of govt - they realized that in a modern economy - they could not guarantee defined benefits on 30 year and longer horizons so they went to defined contributions.
The Feds did that also with their employees - not recently - but back in the 80's.
it's become more and more apparent that a smart business does not hire more permanent people than they think they can keep over the longer run and in this day and time.. companies come and go in a much faster tempo than before.
companies like IBM, GM, even Microsoft, Google and Apple - know that changes in the market are much more dynamic and volatile than 20, 30 years ago.
I would submit that a number of factors like this that extend way beyond the "uncertainties" of govt policies are in play."
companies no longer offer and employees no longer expect a job that will last a career...no defined benefit pensions, nor all-inclusive health care after retirement.
the business world itself has changed - worldwide - not just in the Obama regulatory world as implied in CD.
if it were true that less regulations would reduce "uncertainty" as claimed, there are dozens of such countries in the world who have minimal regulations as well as minimal taxes but those countries are not at all in the top ranked countries in the world for GDP or any other metric.
there is much more that is going on in the business world these days than the uncertainty of regulation.
it's just a handy cudgel for the anti-obamaites...
but MP's posts about the economy show a different picture.
They show good improvement DESPITE ALL THOSE NASTY regs.
finally - regs CREATE jobs not destroy them.
when you say a company must test their food for e-coli - they have to HIRE people to do that.
it's true - it makes the product more expensive but then people dying from bad food also is expensive.
People, on balance, SUPPORT regs for safe food - even those idiots who fancy themselves as libertarians.
Surely you mean $60 billion in profits in 2011, not $600 billion.
Apparently the $600 billion figure is correct, based on Census data you provided in an earlier post. Obviously then the subsequent figures you report for years prior to 2011 are incorrect because of misplaced decimal points.
You state: "Based on data currently available through the third quarter, the U.S. manufacturing corporations are on track to earn more than $600 billion in profits for 2011, which will be a new record high, and double the profits in both 2008 ($26.6 billion) and 2009 ($28.6 billion), and 36% above the pre-recession level of $44.2 billion in 2007. American manufacturing is alive and well."
For $600 billion to be more than double 2008, 2008 profits must be $266 billion, not $26.6 billion; 2009 must be $286 billion, not $28.6; and 2007 must be $442 billion, not $44.2 billion.
JM: Thanks for pointing out my decimal point mistake, it's been fixed now.
Post a Comment
<< Home