Just getting around to this, been a busy day, but today’s New York Times has one good article and an editorial that misses it by a mile.

First, the good news, this article by Daniel Gross, a guy who actually understands economics. He writes about the recent news — greeted with hysteria in some quarters — that the US share of global GDP has fallen since 2000. Gross takes it all with a yawn, putting it into perspective. The growing wealth of other nations ultimately is good for US manufacturers. We call those newly-wealthy consumers, “customers.” The story also has an accompanying chart which shows the US share of world GDP at 27.7%. By comparison, China’s is a puny 5.4%, while Russia’s is just 2%. It really does put it all in perspective. People often forget we are still the dominant manufacturing power in the world, by a mile. That is part of the reason for these strong GDP numbers.

Given his knowledge of economics, maybe Gross should take up writing the Times editorials. Their lead editorial today continues to fight the old tax battles. They can only ever see one tax solution — raise ‘em! — and are blind to any other views. The bottom line is that tax receipts are at an all-time high. This is not, as the Times says, owing to some lingering vestige of repealed tax cuts. It’s owing to the actual tax cuts kicking in. Cut taxes and that will increase spending and investment. And indeed it has. How else would the Times explain the dramatic uptick in federal tax receipts? It sure wasn’t higher taxes that did it. Tax increases will only retard spending and investment. Old liberal habits are just hard to break.

An occasionally contentious debate on energy policy this morning at the National Review summit featured former CIA Director James Woolsey versus Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute on this question: “Resolved: The Federal Government Should Act to Reduce America’s Dependence on Foreign Oil.”

Woolsey, who chairs the Advisory Committee of the Clean Fuels Foundation, is an advocate of government mandates to encourage use of hybrid gasoline-electric cars, a form of flex-fuel vehicles. This morning he reprised arguments he made on their behalf in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, saying that increased U.S. energy independence could undermine the profits that empower Islamic radicals in the Middle East.

As Taylor’s Cato biography states, “As a senior fellow, Jerry Taylor challenges the “market failure” critique of free markets as they pertain to energy policy and environmental protection.” He sharply argued that the government does a lousy job in replacing the wisdom of the market, a libertarian point of view he applies consistently throughout his economic work. (For example, see this piece in the National Review rebutting the value of subsidies in the oil industry.)

Good debate, although a bit easy to caricature.

But the debate was well worth having, the kind of discussion the public would be well served by having Congress undertake, as well. Congrats and thanks to the National Review Institute, Woolsey and Taylor for illuminating basic principles and real-world consequences of government’s involvement in energy policy.

Just a little gossipy aside from last night’s sessions at the National Review Institute’s summit. At the beginning of his dinner remarks, Gov. Mitt Romney recognized two well-known politicians from the podium. First, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., who has signed on as Romney’s intelligence advisor.

Second, Fred Dalton Thompson, former attorney, former U.S. Senator from Tennessee, famed actor and current star of Law & Order. Thompson has been a little more in the news outside TV lately, filling in for Paul Harvey and writing for the National Review. Given the screediness of Law & Order scripts over the last few years, perhaps Thompson is looking a new role. Glad-handing politician isn’t apparently one of them, though; he bolted as soon as Romney’s speech was over.

Oh, wait, now. We need a manufacturing connection to justify this post, don’t we? How about this? Thompson played the factory boss in a 1989 episode of Roseanne! Gruff but kind-hearted, if we recall correctly. Like so many great American manufacturing executives.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee came to The National Review summit fresh from a stop at Meet the Press, where he announced formation of a presidential exploratory committee. This Hotline On Call account of the day is well-reported, although we add that, as a student of political rhetoric — this is not an endorsement! — we admit to being very impressed with Huckabee’s remarks, his apparent stump speech. Personal, humorous, patriotic, full of telling anecdotes and well-crafted for the audience. How nice to hear the word “freedom.”

Huckabee spent a good portion of his 22-minute speech on health care, casting the issue in terms appreciated by manufacturers — as a competitive and economic crisis. He eschewed the more detailed policy discussion that Romney favored last night, instead making his point in broad and humorous strokes.

Someone has described that the state of health in America is a lot like an NFL football game: 22 people down on the field who desperately need some rest; 70,000 people up in the stands who desperately need some exercise. We need to change not just the health care system but the health, and to focus on preventing the disease, rather than just treating it, because the truth is, we can either keep treating snakebites or we can start killing some snakes. And if we don’t, we cannot economically survive this incredible domestic issue.

Huckabee then turned to issues of infrastructure and energy, top priorities for the NAM. You can read that portion of his remarks in the extended entry below.

(continue reading…)

Former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, running for the Republican nomination for president, gave the dinner speech Saturday at the National Review Institute’s summit, remarks that drew attention and media coverage because of the perceived need for Romney to appeal to conservatives within the party. (This New York Times story offers the conventional, and not unfair, wisdom.) His speech was certainly thorough, complete, information-laden, and, uh…did we say thorough? He hit a full range of topics over 52 minutes.

Kathryn Jean Lopez of The National Review Online, a Romney fan, provides a good summary of his remarks here (although she heard more positive reaction than we did).

Romney spent quite a bit of time extolling his health care plan — requiring Massachusetts adults to buy health insurance — as an example of imposing market discipline on the health care sector. He wrote about the plan in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last April. (Also available at the conference was a report by Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute: Questionable Cure for a Questionable Crisis: The Massachusetts Health Plan Takes Shape.)

Indeed, health care figured prominently in comments throughout the weekend summit. Romney raised it as part of a broad and important discussion of U.S. global economic competitiveness in the context of taxes, education, technology and tort reform. It’s clear his background in business gives Romney a keen understanding of these issues, of tremendous importance to manufacturers.

His discussion of technology and tort reform was particularly on point, earning Romney a good round of applause. For a transcript of that portion of his remarks, see the extended entry.

(continue reading…)

The final speaker at the National Review’s just-completed conference was Tony Snow, White House spokesman, who gave a modified Lincoln Day speech, mixing inspiration, political philosophy and encouragement. Like President Bush’s State of the Union address, his remarks were split between domestic and foreign policy matters, in the latter half focusing on the war in Iraq and the evils of the terrorists who would destroy America. Snow noted how remarkable it was that the United States and its economy did not collapse in the wake of the terrorist attacks.

The first question from the audience came from Debra Burlingame, a former attorney, whose brother was Charles F. “Chic” Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which terrorists forced down into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. While the following exchange touches on subjects not usually addressed by Shopfloor.org, it seemed newsworthy, worth noting for the record and for the sake of balance.*

Burlingame:

It’s so true, my family was just sustained by the incredible, the incredible resilience of this country that we showed on that day and in the days that followed, and I am particularly grateful to this president for never forgiving, never forgetting September 11th….

(continue reading…)

The National Review Institute’s summit has just concluded at the J.W. Marriott (as noted by the Blogger-in-Chief in this and this post). More in just a bit, but two immediate thoughts:

Anyway, much of interest, some of it relevant for a blog about manufacturing and free markets. We’ll follow up with thoughts about presidential candidates and former governors, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney.

Good piece in today’s WaPo Outlook (i.e., opinion) section by Ted Balaker and Sam Staley of The Reason Foundation, debunking some common energy myths. The myths include:

1. “Americans are addicted to driving: Actually, Americans aren’t addicted to their cars any more than office workers are addicted to their computers. Both items are merely tools that allow people to accomplish tasks faster and more conveniently.”

2. “Public Transit can reduce traffic congestion: Transit has been on the slide for well more than half a century.”

3. “We can cut air pollution if only we stop driving: Polls often show that Americans think that air quality is deteriorating. Yet air is getting much cleaner.”

4. “We’re paving over America: How much of the United States is developed? Twenty-five percent? Fifty? Seventy-five? How about 5.4 percent? That’s the Census Bureau’s figure.”

5. “We can’t deal with global warming unless we stop driving: The Kyoto Protocol seeks to get the world to agree to burn less fossil fuel and emit less carbon dioxide, and much of that involves driving less. But even disregarding the treaty’s economic costs, Kyoto’s environmental impact would be slight.”

In any event, a good — and eye-opening — read.

Moore’s Law, posited by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, says that computing power doubles every 18 months. With manufacturers at the leading edge of innovation, incredibly, Moore’s Law continues to remain true.

The latest development comes from Intel and — separately — IBM together with AMD who last night announced advances in “high-k material” which allows them to build smaller, more efficient transistors in microprocessors. The net effect, of course is ever-larger computing power for ever-smaller devices. According to this WaPo story, the 45-nanometer transistor is so small that “more than 300 can fit on a red blood cell.”

So let the uninformed continue to write the benediction and the eulogy for US manufacturing. The truth is, we continue to be the most innovative sector in the US economy, and in the world.

Further to our post from Friday about declining union membership numbers, here’s a link to an excellent piece by the above title by Larry Kudlow. He points out that the states with the highest union density are “high tax, slow growth, population losing states,” while the states with the lost union membership are “low tax, pro business, population growing states, with strong economic growth.”

Most of this info is available in the NAM’s Competitiveness Redbook as well. Capital does tend to go where it’s treated well and states are in a fierce competition for jobs and investment. Part of labor’s challenge is how to be part of the process that attracts investment. That will require a degree of innovation and flexibility that they’ve thus far not shown, except in some very isolated instances.