Manufacturing a Policy in DC
PF Digital Dispatch
ne of the most talked-about items at the NASF Washington Forum recently was the lack of a U.S. ‘Manufacturing Policy,’ essentially a plan to rebound from our country’s most recent economic blahs through a revitalization of the manufacturing sector.
Share
One of the most talked-about items at the NASF Washington Forum recently was the lack of a U.S. ‘Manufacturing Policy,’ essentially a plan to rebound from our country’s most recent economic blahs through a revitalization of the manufacturing sector.
Those in the surface finishing industry — especially those who have survived the most recent sluggish economy — know how important a robust manufacturing sector is to the U.S.
Talk of a more focused manufacturing policy isn’t new, but has picked up steam. In June of 2009, Jeff Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, called on the U.S. to increase its manufacturing base employment to 20% of the entire workforce, saying that that the U.S. has outsourced way too much and that we shouldn’t rely on the financial sector and consumer spending to bring us out of the doldrums.
But as Capital Hill twiddles its thumbs on helping small businesses and manufacturers, the numbers appear to be good for the sector, despite the lack of help from Congress. In April, the U.S. manufacturing sector grew at its fastest pace in almost six years. In fact, it was at a rate that was above expectations, and represented a ninth straight month of gains.
The Institute for Supply Management said its index of national factory activity rose to 60.4 in April from 59.6 in March, with the headline index at its highest since June 2004. A reading above 50 indicates expansion in the sector.
Still, from what we heard at the NASF Washington Forum, much help is still needed from Congress to get serious about helping the manufacturing sector by developing a policy that gets everyone on the same page, and hopefully gets people back to work.
Related Content
-
Looking Back: The Columnists
Many industrial/technical journals consist of a well-rounded mixture of technical papers, practical articles about technology and how-to-do-it features, including this one, Products Finishing. In its decades of publication, the AESF/NASF journal, Plating & Surface Finishing also endeavored to meet this need. Among the many features were those of the columnists, recognized experts who had expertise in certain segments of the surface finishing industry. This article contains a sampling of columns published in P&SF over the years, which still retain information of importance even today.
-
NASF/AESF Foundation Research Project #122: Electrochemical Approaches to Treatment of PFAS in Plating Wastewater - 12th Quarterly Report
This NASF-AESF Foundation research project report covers the 12th quarter of project work (October – December 2023) at the University of Georgia. In our previous report, we described our work on performance and effect of surface fluorinated Ti4O7 anodes on PFAS degradation in reactive electrochemical membrane (REM) mode. This quarter, our experiments involved utilizing porous Ti4O7 plates serving both as anodes and membranes. Tests compared pristine and F-18.6 Ti4O7 anodes at current densities of 10 mA/cm2 and 40 mA/cm2. This 12th quarterly report discusses the mechanisms of the effects on EO performance by anode surface fluorination.
-
NASF/AESF Foundation Research Project #120: Electrochemical Destruction of Perfluorooctanesulfonate in Electroplating Wastewaters – January – December 2023
This NASF-AESF Foundation research project report covers quarterly reporting for the year 2023 at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The objective of this work is to utilize a cost-effective reactive electrochemical membrane (REM) for the removal of PFAS from synthetic electroplating wastewater. Discussed here are the oxidation of PFOA with three different catalysts, development of a method for detecting PFAS, as well as work on 6:2-fluorotelomersulfonic acid (6:2 FTS) and electrodeposited bismuth/tin oxide catalysts.
