6 ms·

This and vaccine /med production from start to finish within borders is going to be the focus of US and EU going forward I think. For obvious reasons

misja111 6y ago
I would add sustainable energy, for similar reasons.
throwaway4good 6y ago
It is all very stupid. I betcha that in ten years time. Global supply chains are going to be even more integrated than they are today. For "obvious" economic reasons.
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  Wrt. "obvious": The reason why TSMC is the global leader in chip manufactoring is not because of cheap labour. It is because of specialisation and that they are the best at what they do. The combination of global trade and massive specialisation, creates this situation where no country can make everything on their own. And insisting in doing so will only result in poorer products at higher prices with lots of wasted capital.
- bsder 6y ago
  > For "obvious" economic reasons. Global integration of highly specialized industries not particularly dependent upon labor cost is not at all obvious--especially in the face of increasing political instability. Part of the theory of engaging with China is that pulling it into the world would make them better worldwide citizens. This has not worked. It has simply made China a bigger bully. So be it. A gigantic amount of semiconductor manufacturing lives within 400 miles of China. That can't possibly be defended effectively against military action short of moving it a lot further away from China. That's what we're seeing the start of here.
  - throwaway4good 6y ago
    Yeah. It is internal US politics. Not really rational.
  - ngcc_hk 6y ago
    Great say. Btw that gigantic ... Other than the Netherlands part, japan, South Korea and Taiwan are all keys here and close to a mad man and a sharp power. Also noteworthy to mention all these are partially due to the failure of intel more than anything else. If intel keep arm and maintain the same level of chip production. Ultimately we need at least two sources of critical components for any process rely upon them to be safe whatever the process is.
  - randomopining 6y ago
    I think both parties were just paying lipservice to the CCP/China issue as long as big businesses were raking in the cash and consumers were getting good deals on cheap plastic sht from them. Huge failure. They should've squeezed them in 1990-1992 as the USSR was dissolving and there was no pressing power to contend with. And North Korea they should've attacked then as well. No other way to solve this when the opponent will use your goodwill against you to play you for decades straight like the Kim dynasty.
- raverbashing 6y ago
  It's all very stupid until a ship gets stuck or a global pandemic means people will rush to resources. Props to economists on having zero foresight ability
  - throwaway4good 6y ago
    Yeah. It is a bit like that. A ship gets stuck in the Suez channel. Let's drill a new channel ...
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      > Let's drill a new channel ... Which is actually what Egypt is doing, parts of the Canal are already redundant. The Ever Given had the bad luck of getting stuck in a non-redundant section.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    How do you figure that everyone on the planet being a good deal poorer is preferable to having a boat stuck in the mud for 6 days?
    - prewett 6y ago
      The problem with integration is that it is more efficient until there's a problem, at which point it can be catastrophic. The one boat held up 300 other ones, and while 6 days probably isn't a huge problem, suppose the country you outsource all your manufacturing to decides to go to war with you? Now you don't have any manufacturing because it was cheaper to outsource it. Or maybe your supplier of soybeans gets a nationalistic ruler who decides to not ship you any soybeans. Also, I'm not convinced that maximum efficiency is good for everyone. The US had a lot more manufacturing jobs before outsourcing to China. Sure, stuff is cheaper now, but a bunch of people no longer have decent paying jobs, and the labor market is now minimum wage or requires a college degree. I those people formerly doing manufacturing are a good deal poorer thanks to global integration. And we all are going to be poorer if all the economic-losers elect populists, since I can't think of any populists who didn't ruin their country if in power long enough.
cosmodisk 6y ago
At that point it won't matter anymore. China and the surrounding region is so big that even cutting off Europe and North America would be very painful,it won't be as bad if the same would have happened 10-20 years ago.
makomk 6y ago
Probably not just the US and EU that will seek out domestic vaccine and medicine production. Who knows how much worse off the UK would be if the EU could actually seize the UK supply of AstraZeneca's vaccine once our vaccination program pulling ahead of theirs became a political headache?

misja111 6y ago

I would add sustainable energy, for similar reasons.

throwaway4good 6y ago

It is all very stupid. I betcha that in ten years time. Global supply chains are going to be even more integrated than they are today. For "obvious" economic reasons.

throwaway4good 6y ago
Wrt. "obvious": The reason why TSMC is the global leader in chip manufactoring is not because of cheap labour. It is because of specialisation and that they are the best at what they do. The combination of global trade and massive specialisation, creates this situation where no country can make everything on their own. And insisting in doing so will only result in poorer products at higher prices with lots of wasted capital.
bsder 6y ago
> For "obvious" economic reasons. Global integration of highly specialized industries not particularly dependent upon labor cost is not at all obvious--especially in the face of increasing political instability. Part of the theory of engaging with China is that pulling it into the world would make them better worldwide citizens. This has not worked. It has simply made China a bigger bully. So be it. A gigantic amount of semiconductor manufacturing lives within 400 miles of China. That can't possibly be defended effectively against military action short of moving it a lot further away from China. That's what we're seeing the start of here.
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  Yeah. It is internal US politics. Not really rational.
- ngcc_hk 6y ago
  Great say. Btw that gigantic ... Other than the Netherlands part, japan, South Korea and Taiwan are all keys here and close to a mad man and a sharp power. Also noteworthy to mention all these are partially due to the failure of intel more than anything else. If intel keep arm and maintain the same level of chip production. Ultimately we need at least two sources of critical components for any process rely upon them to be safe whatever the process is.
- randomopining 6y ago
  I think both parties were just paying lipservice to the CCP/China issue as long as big businesses were raking in the cash and consumers were getting good deals on cheap plastic sht from them. Huge failure. They should've squeezed them in 1990-1992 as the USSR was dissolving and there was no pressing power to contend with. And North Korea they should've attacked then as well. No other way to solve this when the opponent will use your goodwill against you to play you for decades straight like the Kim dynasty.
raverbashing 6y ago
It's all very stupid until a ship gets stuck or a global pandemic means people will rush to resources. Props to economists on having zero foresight ability
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  Yeah. It is a bit like that. A ship gets stuck in the Suez channel. Let's drill a new channel ...
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    > Let's drill a new channel ... Which is actually what Egypt is doing, parts of the Canal are already redundant. The Ever Given had the bad luck of getting stuck in a non-redundant section.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  How do you figure that everyone on the planet being a good deal poorer is preferable to having a boat stuck in the mud for 6 days?
  - prewett 6y ago
    The problem with integration is that it is more efficient until there's a problem, at which point it can be catastrophic. The one boat held up 300 other ones, and while 6 days probably isn't a huge problem, suppose the country you outsource all your manufacturing to decides to go to war with you? Now you don't have any manufacturing because it was cheaper to outsource it. Or maybe your supplier of soybeans gets a nationalistic ruler who decides to not ship you any soybeans. Also, I'm not convinced that maximum efficiency is good for everyone. The US had a lot more manufacturing jobs before outsourcing to China. Sure, stuff is cheaper now, but a bunch of people no longer have decent paying jobs, and the labor market is now minimum wage or requires a college degree. I those people formerly doing manufacturing are a good deal poorer thanks to global integration. And we all are going to be poorer if all the economic-losers elect populists, since I can't think of any populists who didn't ruin their country if in power long enough.

cosmodisk 6y ago

At that point it won't matter anymore. China and the surrounding region is so big that even cutting off Europe and North America would be very painful,it won't be as bad if the same would have happened 10-20 years ago.

makomk 6y ago

Probably not just the US and EU that will seek out domestic vaccine and medicine production. Who knows how much worse off the UK would be if the EU could actually seize the UK supply of AstraZeneca's vaccine once our vaccination program pulling ahead of theirs became a political headache?