4 ms·

But isn't the reason these products are made in China because it's inherently both more efficient and cost-effective? You're saying we should make products in

by atomi 8y ago

But isn't the reason these products are made in China because it's inherently both more efficient and cost-effective? You're saying we should make products in a less efficient and more expensive way to avoid relying on other countries? And by the way isn't the bulk of our imports raw materials anyway?

HenryBemis 8y ago
> And by the way isn't the bulk of our imports raw materials anyway? I would assume no. If you see the packaging of almost-everything (apart from food/drinks), chances are that they are made in China (and designed in X-Y-Z country).
- atomi 8y ago
  I think you might be right. Cars, computers, TVs seem to be big imports. But America does not produce all of it's own rare earth metals so manufacturing some products without also increasing raw material production could be an issue - if our goal is to decrease reliance on other countries.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    But America does not produce all of it's own rare earth metals so manufacturing some products without also increasing raw material production could be an issue - if our goal is to decrease reliance on other countries. We have domestic rare earth metal resources. Right now, we don't mine it here, because it's too expensive to get rid of the resulting Thorium. If there was only a market for that stuff...
    - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
      The USA doesn’t mine it because refining it is economically not competitive compared to Chinese producers who give a damn about pollution laws.
      - orf 8y ago
        Not sure if Trump and his appointees do either
        seanmcdirmid 8y ago
        Trump is just one president against a well-established Nixonian institution. He might be able to do damage, but we won't get to China-level pollution in just one term.
frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
>You're saying we should make products in a less efficient and more expensive way to avoid relying on other countries? In this case yes. This is competition between nation-states we're talking about, viewing the entire relationship through the narrow lens of economic efficiency is missing the forest for one specific tree.
- atomi 8y ago
  So then these are protectionist policies and not in the spirit of pure capitalism. And these policies are in place for "the good of the nation" as such any policy good for the nation is supposed to be a rational action notwithstanding the effects of unintended or retaliatory consequences. And lastly, we're to "trust" a single man's unilateral tariff power that all will be well. Is that all correct?
- ravitation 8y ago
  And viewing "this" through the extremely more narrow 19th century lens of competition between nation states completely ignores the entirety of 20th century economic and geopolitical thinking.
  - civilitty 8y ago
    There's no need to bring mercantilism into "this". If you go to France, for example, most people there buy nicer clothes but less often than consumers do in the US so there is a large industry of artisans whose jobs don't depend on the global competitive landscape. Unlike in the US, these artisans make products that almost everyone has access to instead of catering to the rich/super rich. It's not a question of efficiency but desire to support local industries with livable wages - an efficiency of regional wealth distribution if you will. In this sense, France is competing for the money that the industry generates with other nation states but it's not a zero-sum game where France's gain is China's loss. Unfortunately, American consumers are unwilling to pay the higher prices such a culture requires so instead economic nationalists try to push the mercantilist bullshit in the name of protecting domestic industries and national security.
dqpb 8y ago
What products are "inherently more efficient and cost-effective" in China?
- atomi 8y ago
  I think it's mostly that raw materials and labor are likely cheaper in China.
  - chrisjc 8y ago
    It's also cheaper for us not having to deal with waste and pollution. (Although i understand that it's ultimately everyone's problem)
znpy 8y ago
> You're saying we should make products in a less efficient and more expensive way to avoid relying on other countries? Not "other countries", just China. Now, I'm not an us citizen and I don't like Mr Trump particularly, but consider the following: when you say "less efficient" what are you referring to? Is it technology? USA are certainly not behind China on technology. So what is missing to the equation? It's labor. China is so "efficient" because of its ultra-capitalist-masked-as-communist regime. Also, you're not considering environmental impact (that the US, while not excelling at this, actually do consider). All this (carelessness of environmental impact and no freedom of thought) are basically unfair competition and Donald Trump is right on this initiative. As a left-leaning person I just cannot understand how is it even possible to accept as the norm the fact that a totalitarian regime like China's has got such a nice treatment so far. My 2¢
- jackewiehose 8y ago
  > Not "other countries", just China. It's not just China. There's also Mexico, Canada, Europe ... I don't know exactly the current state of affairs but Trump certainly doesn't punish China because of its bad working conditions.
- sangnoir 8y ago
  > Also, you're not considering environmental impact (that the US, while not excelling at this, actually do consider). The US is a bigger polluter (per capita) than China. The current administration at the EPA seems to view environmental considerations as hindrances to industry competitiveness.
  - yellowapple 8y ago
    The US is a bigger per-capita polluter only because the average Chinese "capita" can't afford to (or otherwise doesn't for some other reason, but knowing Chinese living conditions, I'd bet affordability is the main factor) do/buy/use nearly as many pollution-causing things as the average American "capita". As a specific example, the US is (according to Wikipedia at least) second only to San Marino in vehicles per capita (910 for every 1000 people). China is in 73rd place, with a much more modest 154. Electricity consumption is similarly different, with the US' per-capita electricity consumption being triple that of China's (despite China having almost double the total electricity consumption of the US). If the average Chinese had the same purchasing power as the average American, I can guarantee that China's per-capita pollution would skyrocket to beyond US levels.

by atomi 8y ago

HenryBemis 8y ago

> And by the way isn't the bulk of our imports raw materials anyway? I would assume no. If you see the packaging of almost-everything (apart from food/drinks), chances are that they are made in China (and designed in X-Y-Z country).

atomi 8y ago
I think you might be right. Cars, computers, TVs seem to be big imports. But America does not produce all of it's own rare earth metals so manufacturing some products without also increasing raw material production could be an issue - if our goal is to decrease reliance on other countries.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  But America does not produce all of it's own rare earth metals so manufacturing some products without also increasing raw material production could be an issue - if our goal is to decrease reliance on other countries. We have domestic rare earth metal resources. Right now, we don't mine it here, because it's too expensive to get rid of the resulting Thorium. If there was only a market for that stuff...
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    The USA doesn’t mine it because refining it is economically not competitive compared to Chinese producers who give a damn about pollution laws.
    - orf 8y ago
      Not sure if Trump and his appointees do either
      - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
        Trump is just one president against a well-established Nixonian institution. He might be able to do damage, but we won't get to China-level pollution in just one term.

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago

>You're saying we should make products in a less efficient and more expensive way to avoid relying on other countries? In this case yes. This is competition between nation-states we're talking about, viewing the entire relationship through the narrow lens of economic efficiency is missing the forest for one specific tree.

atomi 8y ago
So then these are protectionist policies and not in the spirit of pure capitalism. And these policies are in place for "the good of the nation" as such any policy good for the nation is supposed to be a rational action notwithstanding the effects of unintended or retaliatory consequences. And lastly, we're to "trust" a single man's unilateral tariff power that all will be well. Is that all correct?
ravitation 8y ago
And viewing "this" through the extremely more narrow 19th century lens of competition between nation states completely ignores the entirety of 20th century economic and geopolitical thinking.
- civilitty 8y ago
  There's no need to bring mercantilism into "this". If you go to France, for example, most people there buy nicer clothes but less often than consumers do in the US so there is a large industry of artisans whose jobs don't depend on the global competitive landscape. Unlike in the US, these artisans make products that almost everyone has access to instead of catering to the rich/super rich. It's not a question of efficiency but desire to support local industries with livable wages - an efficiency of regional wealth distribution if you will. In this sense, France is competing for the money that the industry generates with other nation states but it's not a zero-sum game where France's gain is China's loss. Unfortunately, American consumers are unwilling to pay the higher prices such a culture requires so instead economic nationalists try to push the mercantilist bullshit in the name of protecting domestic industries and national security.

dqpb 8y ago

What products are "inherently more efficient and cost-effective" in China?

atomi 8y ago
I think it's mostly that raw materials and labor are likely cheaper in China.
- chrisjc 8y ago
  It's also cheaper for us not having to deal with waste and pollution. (Although i understand that it's ultimately everyone's problem)

znpy 8y ago

> You're saying we should make products in a less efficient and more expensive way to avoid relying on other countries? Not "other countries", just China. Now, I'm not an us citizen and I don't like Mr Trump particularly, but consider the following: when you say "less efficient" what are you referring to? Is it technology? USA are certainly not behind China on technology. So what is missing to the equation? It's labor. China is so "efficient" because of its ultra-capitalist-masked-as-communist regime. Also, you're not considering environmental impact (that the US, while not excelling at this, actually do consider). All this (carelessness of environmental impact and no freedom of thought) are basically unfair competition and Donald Trump is right on this initiative. As a left-leaning person I just cannot understand how is it even possible to accept as the norm the fact that a totalitarian regime like China's has got such a nice treatment so far. My 2¢

jackewiehose 8y ago
> Not "other countries", just China. It's not just China. There's also Mexico, Canada, Europe ... I don't know exactly the current state of affairs but Trump certainly doesn't punish China because of its bad working conditions.
sangnoir 8y ago
> Also, you're not considering environmental impact (that the US, while not excelling at this, actually do consider). The US is a bigger polluter (per capita) than China. The current administration at the EPA seems to view environmental considerations as hindrances to industry competitiveness.
- yellowapple 8y ago
  The US is a bigger per-capita polluter only because the average Chinese "capita" can't afford to (or otherwise doesn't for some other reason, but knowing Chinese living conditions, I'd bet affordability is the main factor) do/buy/use nearly as many pollution-causing things as the average American "capita". As a specific example, the US is (according to Wikipedia at least) second only to San Marino in vehicles per capita (910 for every 1000 people). China is in 73rd place, with a much more modest 154. Electricity consumption is similarly different, with the US' per-capita electricity consumption being triple that of China's (despite China having almost double the total electricity consumption of the US). If the average Chinese had the same purchasing power as the average American, I can guarantee that China's per-capita pollution would skyrocket to beyond US levels.