4 ms·

> This requires a supply chain that the US no longer has, AFAIK....and its non-trivial to clone it. The US (and other countries) lost much of its electronics s

by ardy42 7y ago

> This requires a supply chain that the US no longer has, AFAIK....and its non-trivial to clone it. The US (and other countries) lost much of its electronics supply chain (and manufacturing in general) due to political priorities, and it can regain it by shifting those priorities and enacting new policy. This idea of "it's gone and never coming back" is false and a result of an over-attachment to certain ideas and certain policies.

Barrin92 7y ago
>it can regain it by shifting those priorities and enacting new policy that would require a fundamental rethinking of economics and trade away from free-marketeering towards an understanding more similar to the Chinese who put these questions into the context of national (security) interest, and that is very unlikely to happen, in particular in the US in which private interest groups wield significant power over a largely weak and incoherent government. In Europe, it may be possible if France would have more of a say but countries like Germany or the Netherlands would be significantly hurt by the inevitable retaliation so it's probably a nonstarter here too.
- ardy42 7y ago
  > ...in the US in which private interest groups wield significant power... AFAIK, those interest groups don't actually wield very much power, but they've been very effective at promoting the fatalistic attitude that their favored polices are inevitable and permanent. For proof, look at the current president who started a major tariff war that was very much against a major leg of free-market policy. What paused it wasn't those interest groups, it was political uncertainty caused by retaliation that targeted farm states by the other party in that war.
- godtoldmetodoit 7y ago
  It feels to me like the US as a whole is getting more protectionist over the last decade, and that the free trade everyone is welcome, export to our market for free is seeing some massive attacks. This is a feeling shared by both the left and right in the populist portions of both parties. People are looking for ways to get more solid middle class jobs back into the USA, and protectionist trade policy is an obvious place to start for many. Prior to Bretton Woods there had never been a system of free trade between (nearly) all countries enforced by a singular superpower. There's nothing fundamental saying that America won't swerve away from providing the service of protecting and enforcing global trade. If that ever happens, it will have many serious consequences, but the US could still decide it is in its best interest.
mmhsieh 7y ago
it is not just political priorities. either the onshored industries would have to be as competitive as those in asia and europe, or they would have be subsidized. these are not trivial matters.
- ardy42 7y ago
  Or they could be neither but protected by tariffs or other means. The decision is one about political priorities, in this case: free trade vs. other considerations.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
pier25 7y ago
Unless the manufacturing industry was heavily subsidized I doubt it could compete with the Chinese.

by ardy42 7y ago

Barrin92 7y ago

>it can regain it by shifting those priorities and enacting new policy that would require a fundamental rethinking of economics and trade away from free-marketeering towards an understanding more similar to the Chinese who put these questions into the context of national (security) interest, and that is very unlikely to happen, in particular in the US in which private interest groups wield significant power over a largely weak and incoherent government. In Europe, it may be possible if France would have more of a say but countries like Germany or the Netherlands would be significantly hurt by the inevitable retaliation so it's probably a nonstarter here too.

ardy42 7y ago
> ...in the US in which private interest groups wield significant power... AFAIK, those interest groups don't actually wield very much power, but they've been very effective at promoting the fatalistic attitude that their favored polices are inevitable and permanent. For proof, look at the current president who started a major tariff war that was very much against a major leg of free-market policy. What paused it wasn't those interest groups, it was political uncertainty caused by retaliation that targeted farm states by the other party in that war.
godtoldmetodoit 7y ago
It feels to me like the US as a whole is getting more protectionist over the last decade, and that the free trade everyone is welcome, export to our market for free is seeing some massive attacks. This is a feeling shared by both the left and right in the populist portions of both parties. People are looking for ways to get more solid middle class jobs back into the USA, and protectionist trade policy is an obvious place to start for many. Prior to Bretton Woods there had never been a system of free trade between (nearly) all countries enforced by a singular superpower. There's nothing fundamental saying that America won't swerve away from providing the service of protecting and enforcing global trade. If that ever happens, it will have many serious consequences, but the US could still decide it is in its best interest.

mmhsieh 7y ago

it is not just political priorities. either the onshored industries would have to be as competitive as those in asia and europe, or they would have be subsidized. these are not trivial matters.

ardy42 7y ago
Or they could be neither but protected by tariffs or other means. The decision is one about political priorities, in this case: free trade vs. other considerations.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

pier25 7y ago

Unless the manufacturing industry was heavily subsidized I doubt it could compete with the Chinese.