Home    Resource Store    Past Issues    Buyers' Guide    Career Center    Subscriptions    Advertising    E-Newsletter    Contact

More From The Editor

The Quantum Group: Innovation Honoree
November 23, 2015

ITMA 2015: Finally
September 22, 2015

L.A.'s Apparel Industry At Risk?
July 19, 2015

AAPN's Meeting Became A Conference
May 19, 2015

Textiles On The Move
March 16, 2015

Textile World Photo Galleries
November/December 2015 November/December 2015

View Issue  |

Subscribe Now  |


Vietnam Fashion, Fabric & Garment Machinery Expo
11/25/2015 - 11/27/2015

From Farm To Fabric: The Many Faces Of Cotton - The 74th Plenary Meeting of the International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC)
12/06/2015 - 12/11/2015

Capstone Course On Nonwoven Product Development
12/07/2015 - 12/11/2015

- more events -

- submit your event -

Printer Friendly
Full Site
From The Editor
James M. Borneman, Editor In Chief

Just Whistle

James M. Borneman, Editor In Chief

W ith the current anti-manufacturing bias of US policy makers — in addition to US trade policies directed by global politics rather than sound economics — the textile industry, and US manufacturing in the broadest sense, are struggling for their very existence. For those — and there are many — who feel textiles is an old, low-tech industry, maybe a trip to ITMA 2003 in Birmingham would provide an education. US plants and mills around the world are poised to see the latest developments in textile technology that not only increase the productivity and flexibility of the manufacturing process, but also illustrate the potential for new products and innovation.

In a recent business commentary, the author pointed to innovation in the United States as a remedy for the flight of jobs to low-cost countries — with the finance and banking sectors holding the keys to the future of the US economy. In general, however, there is a sense that influencers of current policy have never spent a working day in the modern manufacturing environment, and simply dismiss it with a sense that manufacturing is both beneath them and simply unimportant to the future of the United States. This elitist attitude is disrespectful of the tremendous strides US manufacturers have made over the years in labor, workplace safety and environmental sensitivity, not to mention innovation in both product and process.

The language the anti-manufacturing choir chooses places anyone seeking fairness, enforcement and structural awareness (for example, of currency foolery) in the corner of antiquated, protectionist thinkers. This simply is not the case. Most manufacturers today are globally aware, heavily invested companies with interest in partnerships and global growth. However, systemic cheating undermines the ability of foreign and domestic manufacturers that play by the rules to forge these relationships based on sound business practices.

Globally, there are firms in every corner of the world worthy of the respect and admiration of their industrial peers. Very few US textile industry executives hold anything less than respect for these companies. It appears the responsibility for enforcement, however, doesn’t fall to the private sector — unfortunately, it’s the US government’s job. Even if a sense of competitive fairness is achieved through US policy, it is enforcement that makes it happen.

Any game can have good rules, but without a referee who is not afraid to blow the whistle, the game, its competitors and the outcome are not done justice. With that in mind, one wonders if the current administration has the fortitude to enforce the rules, or has it simply lost its whistle?

September 2003