5 ms·

The problem is that almost no one buys products based on the stability of the supply chain, so irresponsibly-global supply chains will beat out responsibly-glob

The problem is that almost no one buys products based on the stability of the supply chain, so irresponsibly-global supply chains will beat out responsibly-global ones on price. The problem is our tools to addressing this are either (a) some sort of tariff arrangement, which will almost certainly be political footballs far more than they will address any real problem, or (b) some regulatory/compliance arrangement, where regulated industries will have to sift through billions of dollars of compliance paperwork annually describing their supply chains, and which may be subject to the scare-of-the-month and international political football. Neither is ideal.

SilasX 7y ago
Hm, what about some kind of "chaos monkey" where a random number generator decides which countries will be embargoed and for how long? (Half-joking.)
- richk449 7y ago
  Wow, the idea of a real-world chaos monkey is genius. Robotic or biological? Perhaps COVID-19 is a chaos-monkey?
- nnq 7y ago
  This is genius. Better to have an artificial failure inducing system that have rare but catastrophic natural failures. This really should be implemented!
- closeparen 7y ago
  We used to have this; it was called piracy.
  - SilasX 7y ago
    lol, very true! Put in that perspective, maybe it's a better idea to contain have international cooperation -- like we did for piracy -- to compat the problems that cause a country to be shut down, rather than assume international trade will always be a crapshoot.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
There is a third option. Apply the same regulations to the manufacture of all products sold in your country. You want to manufacture in China and sell in the US, that's fine -- but you have to do it in accordance with US environmental rules. That does two things. One, no more cost advantage to global manufacturing in whatever place has the least respect for the environment, which lets others compete better and removes the race to the bottom. Two, there are lots of different and potentially conflicting rules everywhere, so then you get more specialization as there is an advantage to smaller companies that only comply with the rules for the markets where they're selling.
- swsieber 7y ago
  There's a fourth option: close down all U.S. trade ports for a month once a year. No paperwork or other administrative headaches. "Just" a dry run once a year.
  - op03 7y ago
    I think the power grid is tested like that once in a while after the 2003 blackout - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003#Long-term_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003#Lon... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04287-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04287-5
  - fma 7y ago
    Chaos monkey, but for supply chain. I actually like it...it would make our systems more robust.
  - aembleton 7y ago
    That'll just mean stockpiling before the month it gets closed.
    - spaceknarf 7y ago
      Not if it's unknown _which_ month. Then you'll have to keep a stockpile year round, which is precisely the objective of grandparent.
DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
> The problem is that almost no one buys products based on the stability of the supply chain, so irresponsibly-global supply chains will beat out responsibly-global ones on price. We should qualify the term "irresponsible" here: 1) If we somehow avoid events like covid19 for an entire decade (for example), in retrospect the self-imposed inefficiencies could be called "irresponsible". I think the real issue is that there are costs associated with guessing wrong in either direction regarding when these events will occur. 2) Just a guess, but I would think having interdependent supply chains reduces the chances that those countries will go to war. Giving up that benefit could also be seen as irresponsible.
- selimthegrim 7y ago
  Britain didn’t seem convinced by 2) for the EU probably because it was spared the worst of the war (invasion)
ibeckermayer 7y ago
Events like this should weed out firms with irresponsible supply chains, unless we’re forced to bail them out.
- carltonf 7y ago
  Extended period without events will weed out firms with responsible supply chains and thus the other type of firms are very likely to be the majority - the majority of the population will depend on them. So Governments will always be forced to bail them out.

SilasX 7y ago

Hm, what about some kind of "chaos monkey" where a random number generator decides which countries will be embargoed and for how long? (Half-joking.)

richk449 7y ago
Wow, the idea of a real-world chaos monkey is genius. Robotic or biological? Perhaps COVID-19 is a chaos-monkey?
nnq 7y ago
This is genius. Better to have an artificial failure inducing system that have rare but catastrophic natural failures. This really should be implemented!
closeparen 7y ago
We used to have this; it was called piracy.
- SilasX 7y ago
  lol, very true! Put in that perspective, maybe it's a better idea to contain have international cooperation -- like we did for piracy -- to compat the problems that cause a country to be shut down, rather than assume international trade will always be a crapshoot.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

There is a third option. Apply the same regulations to the manufacture of all products sold in your country. You want to manufacture in China and sell in the US, that's fine -- but you have to do it in accordance with US environmental rules. That does two things. One, no more cost advantage to global manufacturing in whatever place has the least respect for the environment, which lets others compete better and removes the race to the bottom. Two, there are lots of different and potentially conflicting rules everywhere, so then you get more specialization as there is an advantage to smaller companies that only comply with the rules for the markets where they're selling.

swsieber 7y ago
There's a fourth option: close down all U.S. trade ports for a month once a year. No paperwork or other administrative headaches. "Just" a dry run once a year.
- op03 7y ago
  I think the power grid is tested like that once in a while after the 2003 blackout - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003#Long-term_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_2003#Lon... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04287-5 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04287-5
- fma 7y ago
  Chaos monkey, but for supply chain. I actually like it...it would make our systems more robust.
- aembleton 7y ago
  That'll just mean stockpiling before the month it gets closed.
  - spaceknarf 7y ago
    Not if it's unknown _which_ month. Then you'll have to keep a stockpile year round, which is precisely the objective of grandparent.

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago

> The problem is that almost no one buys products based on the stability of the supply chain, so irresponsibly-global supply chains will beat out responsibly-global ones on price. We should qualify the term "irresponsible" here: 1) If we somehow avoid events like covid19 for an entire decade (for example), in retrospect the self-imposed inefficiencies could be called "irresponsible". I think the real issue is that there are costs associated with guessing wrong in either direction regarding when these events will occur. 2) Just a guess, but I would think having interdependent supply chains reduces the chances that those countries will go to war. Giving up that benefit could also be seen as irresponsible.

selimthegrim 7y ago
Britain didn’t seem convinced by 2) for the EU probably because it was spared the worst of the war (invasion)

ibeckermayer 7y ago

Events like this should weed out firms with irresponsible supply chains, unless we’re forced to bail them out.

carltonf 7y ago
Extended period without events will weed out firms with responsible supply chains and thus the other type of firms are very likely to be the majority - the majority of the population will depend on them. So Governments will always be forced to bail them out.