4 ms·

Or produce locally where possible to avoid that altogether. The risk is higher than then higher production costs in many cases. Its not nationalist drivel to su

Or produce locally where possible to avoid that altogether. The risk is higher than then higher production costs in many cases. Its not nationalist drivel to support your own area when it is feasible.

ikeboy 7y ago
No, inefficient production and ignoring comparative advantages is bad regardless of what language you use to play it up.
- _iyig 7y ago
  Ideally, one factory’s more-efficient production method would result in a larger economic pie that would be fairly distributed amongst everyone. In practice, especially when you consider regional trade barriers and the lack of perfect and instantaneous wealth redistribution, many people care about factors such as, “will my friends and family still have economic opportunity if this factory is offshored?” This concern may at first seem like nationalism or nativism, but through a bit of moral algebra we’ll reveal it as that blessed market motive of rational self-interest. Put simply, factory workers in foreign countries won’t help raise your children, watch over you in times of ill health, or take care of you in old age. In the United States, such aid is also unlikely to come from the anonymous shareholders and C-level executives who’ll reap the main economic benefits of any offshoring.
  - floe 7y ago
    These incentives aren't enough for any single rational actor to change their behavior. At the national level, sure, there's an argument for protectionism. But, not at the individual level as whenchamenia suggested.
neuronic 7y ago
Local means worse. The West has terrible production infrastructure when compared to places like Shenzen. It's a serious disadvantage on many fronts.
- ebog 7y ago
  That's not entirely true. The US is good at capital intensive or high skilled manufacturing like most other countries aren't. That's why it's viable for a lot of car companies to open plants in the US. It's just that most of the supply chain requires more labor and less capital, which the US economy is not suited towards.

ikeboy 7y ago

No, inefficient production and ignoring comparative advantages is bad regardless of what language you use to play it up.

_iyig 7y ago
Ideally, one factory’s more-efficient production method would result in a larger economic pie that would be fairly distributed amongst everyone. In practice, especially when you consider regional trade barriers and the lack of perfect and instantaneous wealth redistribution, many people care about factors such as, “will my friends and family still have economic opportunity if this factory is offshored?” This concern may at first seem like nationalism or nativism, but through a bit of moral algebra we’ll reveal it as that blessed market motive of rational self-interest. Put simply, factory workers in foreign countries won’t help raise your children, watch over you in times of ill health, or take care of you in old age. In the United States, such aid is also unlikely to come from the anonymous shareholders and C-level executives who’ll reap the main economic benefits of any offshoring.
- floe 7y ago
  These incentives aren't enough for any single rational actor to change their behavior. At the national level, sure, there's an argument for protectionism. But, not at the individual level as whenchamenia suggested.

neuronic 7y ago

Local means worse. The West has terrible production infrastructure when compared to places like Shenzen. It's a serious disadvantage on many fronts.

ebog 7y ago
That's not entirely true. The US is good at capital intensive or high skilled manufacturing like most other countries aren't. That's why it's viable for a lot of car companies to open plants in the US. It's just that most of the supply chain requires more labor and less capital, which the US economy is not suited towards.