3Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksPresident seems to think that increasing TOURISM is the key to economic recovery. Anyone else think that this is INSANE? What next, a Cabinet post for Donald Freakin' DUCK?
Give me a break...
January 21st, 2012, 07:51 PM
President seems to think that increasing TOURISM is the key to economic recovery. Anyone else think that this is INSANE? What next, a Cabinet post for Donald Freakin' DUCK?
Give me a break...
Yeah, he did the same thing that Reagan, the Bushes and other presidents have done.
Give ME a break...
What percentage of US exports is from tourism?
Well the relevant question is how much income is generated by the tourism.Originally Posted by Strange
MW, it is not a party thing, it is a question of the basic premise. Tourism is a LUXURY, okay to depend on temporarily, when the world economy is booming. We are in a global bust right now.
Or hadn't you noticed?
Anyway, tourism is not what gave the USA its former wealth and power. It is unlikely to restore them, now or ever.
Thank you both for your responses, I will endeavor to find answers for your most relevant questions- unfortunately I have other responsibilities at the moment.
That's what I meant, really. Tourism is an export. If it is a good proportion of export earnings, then it seems like a good idea to try an expand it. If it is a minute percentage, then there is probably no point.Well the relevant question is how much income is generated by the tourism.
But in some parts of the developing world there is still good growth and a rapidly expanding middle class who are interested in travel and seeing the world.
The advantage of promoting tourism is that it can be done quite cheaply and quickly - building up manufacturing, for example, could take years or decades, and requires huge investments.
Greater tourism can have incidental benefits by improving people's perception of the country as well; e.g. improving other (manufactured) exports.
Okay, but according to this site the USA is already making more than twice as much from this source, tourism, as China- and economically, China is cleaning our clock. The USA of yesteryear, Japan, Germany(several times) and modern China have all found the road to riches goes through MANUFACTURING, rather than tourism. Historically, the American people have never been ones to shrink from a challenge. Under the Marshall Plan, they invested quite heavily in rebuilding war-torn Europe- should they now do less to help themselves? Speaking of WWII, it was U.S. INDUSTRY which allowed it to become "the arsenal of democracy" in that misleading phrase of the day. Maybe we should sell bonds to finance such an initiative, Heaven knows it worked well enough in the early 1940s.
Therefore, I submit to you that rebuilding the industrial base of this nation is a better strategy than strapping on the mouse ears.
Top Ten World's Tourism Earners
I didn't realize these were mutually exclusive.
What parts of the developing world, specifically? Do their economies depend principally on tourism? I rather expect not.But in some parts of the developing world there is still good growth and a rapidly expanding middle class who are interested in travel and seeing the world.
The advantage of promoting tourism is that it can be done quite cheaply and quickly - building up manufacturing, for example, could take years or decades, and requires huge investments.
Greater tourism can have incidental benefits by improving people's perception of the country as well; e.g. improving other (manufactured) exports.
As for improving the "perception" of the USA, not bombing the crap out of poor countries would have the same effect and save money on munitions.
I was thinking of countries like China, Brazil, India, Russia...
Who said anything about depending "principally" on tourism? That is probably only appropriate for a small number of (small) countries with no other resources.
Visions of assembly line workers in typical Disneyland costumes- priceless! No, it is more a question of emphasis. Good point.I didn't realize these were mutually exclusive.
Affirmative. Obviously China is worth visiting. Just as obviously, it was poor in the 1970s, MADE the commitment to industrialization despite this, and reaps the rewards of such a policy today. Its revenue per capita from tourism is lower than that of the United States.I was thinking of countries like China, Brazil, India, Russia...
Who said anything about depending "principally" on tourism? That is probably only appropriate for a small number of (small) countries with no other resources.
The solution to our national economic woes will not be quick OR cheap- so it at least should be effective.
There was a school of thought represented by Morgenthau which advocated stripping Germany of its industrial capacity forever, in order that it not become a serious threat to the peace of Europe again. He probably would not have minded a tourism based economy for the several Germanies he envisioned.
Henry Morgenthau, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ah, we are talking at cross purposes. I meant that there are developing countries which are markets for US tourism - even in the current economy they have money to spend and could spend it in the US.
No, I do not think so, as far as "cross purposes". My fault for not being clearer. Obviously we all want people to come to our country and leave their money behind, whatever country it happens to be. My point is that the GENERATION of said funds is more likely to come from labor and capital invested in manufacturing. Sorry for not making that more clear.Ah, we are talking at cross purposes. I meant that there are developing countries which are markets for US tourism - even in the current economy they have money to spend and could spend it in the US.
Another benefit of tourism is maintaining a country worth visiting, a worthy goal in its own right. So I do not denounce tourism as a whole, but question the practice of expecting it to be a mainstay of the national economy as a matter of policy.
Sort of surprised Saudi Arabia is not on the list of the top ten in the link above- millions of pilgrims to Mecca annually and all that.
Guess it's a special case. Does the Saudi government subsidize it in a big way? If so, it might be more an economic liability than an asset- one can only wonder what influence a post-petroleum economy will have on the practice.
It seems that at least some pilgrims arrange 0% interest loans for the voyage, implying some revenue is derived from abroad.
OK. But if manufacturing has been offshored, then one way to get the profits back is through tourism
Again, who said "mainstay"?So I do not denounce tourism as a whole, but question the practice of expecting it to be a mainstay of the national economy as a matter of policy.
Agreed- and to your credit, not you, sir.OK. But if manufacturing has been offshored, then one way to get the profits back is through tourism
Again, who said "mainstay"?So I do not denounce tourism as a whole, but question the practice of expecting it to be a mainstay of the national economy as a matter of policy.
The first post is misleading. Tourism should not replace nor become a major field for generating revenue for America. What I understand from the weekly address is that tourism should act as a boost to the US economy and create jobs. Surely that means profit, which is a good thing- but more importantly it will bring stability and possibly even nudge recovery on, for a safe, low budget investment. I find it funny how people can come to believe that there is this one main solution that the US government or other governments can't seem to find.
What does this topic have to do with anything Obama did or said?
Tourism is a welcome source of ready cash for second and third world countries - which the US is becoming, starting with its health care and educational setup and ending with an untaxed plutocracy of wealthy families running things from their country clubs and financial cartels. Like the English, we'll get used to it.
We are a service economy, making tourism a perfect fit.
Those who really want a return to an almost entirely industrial-based economy are asking for a return to burning rivers, poisoned lakes, horrible breathing conditions and mostly low-brow dangerous work places to remain competitive with the developing world.
We've moved past that and are better for it.
--
And lets not forget we still the strongest economy by a huge margin--fears of us becoming a 2nd world nation might be justified a generation from now if we do EVERYTHING wrong.
According to this doc about 10% of exports.
http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/outreachpag...r_Spending.pdf
We are fairly quickly using up the capital, social and physical, accumulated over a couple of centuries of actual investment and return. A round of serious inflation would do nicely - and that is far from impossible.And lets not forget we still the strongest economy by a huge margin--fears of us becoming a 2nd world nation might be justified a generation from now if we do EVERYTHING wrong.
We are already second world level in several key, central matters (education and health care chief among them), and the trend is downwards. As our economic inequality approaches Central American levels, so does our average height, for example; or our working ours if employed;
Simple fix: retract all troops from foreign countries and reduce the defence budget by hundreds of billions. Done.
Everything sold in USA not made in Japan is made in China. Add the phrase "balance of trade" and the word "deficit" to your lexicon and perhaps you will revise your forecasts. The entire reason the British got the Chinese hooked on opium was because THEY were/are addicted to tea and could not sell anything else to the Chinese- Oh, this has implications for imported petroleum, too, ones you will probably applaud, since they will result in people freezing in the dark.
But they'll be so GREEN doing it, yes they will be better. And deader!
Now lets look at the facts shall we. PCI stands for personal consumption expenditures. More than 80% of the money we spend is on "stuff" from America.
Thank you for correcting me, I was obviously exaggerating based on subjective impressions. This does not alter the fact that the rise of the PRC has been based on MANUFACTURING rather than any other source and the fact that it now enjoys a trade surplus. Just a few decades ago it was desperately poor and predicted to remain so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China#Trade_relations
They've done well for sure, a combination of privatizing their small businesses, increased efficiency from the internet (also responsible for our 90s boom), and no nation-shattering natural disasters. The US is about a quarter of their exports.
The reason why every other country wanted to host Olympic or World Cup is because it bring foreign money in, and that is profitable. If you wanted the money then try it, if you don't need it then why bother (I'm sure US really want the money). For example: Dubai is not rich because of local business but because of foreign businesses flocking in & invest there.
Arthur, if we follow your prescription of rebuilding the industrial base to restore the economy then you are advocating moving backwards in time. Why not rebuild the agricultural industry. Let's get our employment growth there. There was a time when most people worked on farms and only a few in factories.
But, look! What happened. Times changed. We moved from agriculture to manufacturing. But wait! Times changed again. We moved from manufacturing to service industries. Guess what - service industries can generate a lot of money. In the UK in 2004 the financial sector generated 86 billion pounds sterling, for example. Do you no another service industry that has huge growth potential? That's right - tourism.
So yo have a choice, live in the past and suffer, or move forward and prosper.
Never happened. The boom, that is. The rich got richer, is all.increased efficiency from the internet (also responsible for our 90s boom)
Whether the internet has increased efficiency or not remains to be established by sound investigation - I recall a few years back the Federal government agencies in charge of reporting on the US economy started inserting a factor for productivity gains in white collar jobs through computerization: they had to derive it from theoretical principles, because every attempt to measure its actual value showed no such gain at all, a value of 0 or even slightly negative. And that was of course impossible.
And as usual you make rediculous claims without any support.
The 90's rocked. Most of us were able to pay our bills, and collectively so were States and Federal government. Most people also had jobs. People who were smart enough to invest some of their money (mutuals funds also exploded), made even more.
Or perhaps you enjoyed it before, when a package took a month to get to your door. Something as simple as a homeloan took months to process. When half the trucks on the road were empty and being backhauled because there was no way to coordinate a drivers arrival with a full load.
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; January 27th, 2012 at 10:30 PM.
I wonder if stock market fail because of the internet? because internet enabled everyone to became a trader and bank used AIs to do trade with no conscience at all, and we don't know if this commoner/computers could make right decision. -Lets say I invest in company A because it looks pretty and has good public relation and because some blogger says it is awesome, but in actuality (behind the scene) it is a fraud... then I've failed the market...
Financial market show growth but paradoxically the production/manufacturing stayed the same. Meaning: all the money goes to nothing... But yet we got more and more money... strange.
| « Do warmongers rule the world? | Communist propoganda in animation » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
