5 ms·

> I think the answers “yes”, if the demand is there. It's not a question of demand. A negligible number of customers care where their product is manufactured.

> I think the answers “yes”, if the demand is there. It's not a question of demand. A negligible number of customers care where their product is manufactured. They care only about price, which is why manufacturing moved overseas in the first place. What is needed to manufacture phones in the West is protectionism and mercantilism. Our governments would have to subsidize domestically manufactured products, require the use of domestic products for various industries, and tariff those manufactured in countries with lower labor standards and incompatible civil rights. Unfortunately such policies lead to higher costs for consumers and lower economic growth. It's politically unpopular for the same reason action on climate change is unpopular: it makes everything more expensive. It's no wonder that virtually all western politicians support neoliberal globalism. Goods are cheap, even if it means some of us lost our jobs in the process. Worse, these policies also tend to lead to war. One of the big reasons we've had relative peace between world powers for the last 75 years is that our economies have become closely intertwined, so no politician or corporation can stomach the economic costs of war. If global trade starts to break down we'll head directly into World War 3. Personally I think we should embrace protectionism anyway despite the cost and risk. I'd go so far as ripping up NAFTA. American labor standards are so shit that Canadian companies can barely compete, and it's holding us back from progressive policies like a 4-day work week. Ontario can't even mandate paid sick days! I'd rather we have a well-paid labor force than cheap groceries and electronics. Unfortunately no politician agrees with me.

jolux 5y ago
> It's politically unpopular for the same reason action on climate change is unpopular: it makes everything more expensive. You've got this backwards. Both taking action on climate change and buying American are popular [1][2]. Furthermore I don't know of much evidence that suggests taking action on climate change will raise prices. But you are right about protectionism in that way. That's the biggest problem here. In the abstract I see no reason that global trade should breakdown if a significant majority of people in the world can agree about labor standards, human rights standards, etc. In the specific, I believe this was one of the major original purposes of the UN, though unfortunately the world we live in remains one in which the abuses of great powers go unchecked because the cost of nuclear war is too high. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-madeinusa-poll/americans-want-the-government-to-buy-u-s-made-goods-even-if-they-cost-more-idUSKBN2BM1DA https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-madeinusa-pol...
- detaro 5y ago
  having the government buy American is popular according to that link, not actually doing it yourself.
  - jolux 5y ago
    This is a difficult question to poll because in a great sense actions speak louder than words, but what information I can find suggests similar preferences among consumers themselves: https://review.chicagobooth.edu/marketing/2020/article/made-usa-label-boosts-prices-just-little https://review.chicagobooth.edu/marketing/2020/article/made-... See also: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-buyamerican-poll/americans-want-u-s-goods-but-not-willing-to-pay-more-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1A3210 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-buyamerican-poll/amer...
    - detaro 5y ago
      I just found it funny that your provided link starts with a sentence containing "has not made Americans more willing to pay extra for U.S.-made goods."
      - jolux 5y ago
        Well, I think the government buying American is probably a precursor for anyone else doing so, because they're not at the constraints of the market to find the cheapest viable product.
        thatcat 5y ago
        I thought the government had to accept the lowest bid that met specs, though one of those specs could be mfg in USA.
      - munk-a 5y ago
        Tariffs and subsidies are tools we can use if we want to make sure that domestic products can compete with those from abroad - but the current wide allowances for lobbying in the US make any sort of move in that direction extremely difficult.
WoodenChair 5y ago
> It's not a question of demand. A negligible number of customers care where their product is manufactured. They care only about price, which is why manufacturing moved overseas in the first place. Your first paragraph contradicts itself. Not enough customers demanding their product be made in USA is the very definition of a demand problem.
- ludocode 5y ago
  > Not enough customers demanding their product be made in USA is the very definition of a demand problem. The context was Teslas. The parent comment suggested that Teslas can be manufactured in volume because there is sufficient demand. While true, the demand for Teslas is not due to the fact that they are manufactured in the US. Tesla buyers mostly don't care where they are manufactured; they just want a fast and stylish electric car. The demand is not for US-manufactured Teslas. It's just for Teslas. I agree with you that demand specifically for domestic products does not exist, but this is obvious. Demand for domestic products is not really a thing in the first place because the place of manufacture is not a product differentiator for most consumers. There are very few ways to realistically control direct demand for domestic products; laws that force the government to buy domestic are about it. You have to create demand for domestic products indirectly by making them cheaper than the alternative because that's all that consumers really care about. This is why it's pointless to talk about "customers demanding their product be made in USA". It's not a question of demand because the vast majority of consumers do not and will never care where a product is manufactured.
bserge 5y ago
> They care only about price, which is why manufacturing moved overseas in the first place. I was under the impression that most of the money saved that way went straight into the companies' (offshore) accounts and CXO's pockets.
m-ee 5y ago
People said the exact same thing about international trade making war impossible before both world wars.
benlivengood 5y ago
> Unfortunately such policies lead to higher costs for consumers and lower economic growth. Money circulates faster with more well-paying jobs which would result from increasing on-shore manufacturing. I think the key is to phase tariffs in linearly over several years (perhaps even decades). That gives the domestic economy time to adjust wages for the higher price of domestic manufacturing and doesn't have an immediate negative result on foreign countries. It should drive foreign countries to improve human rights and labor laws to avoid tariffs and stay in the market. Domestic investors should see increasing tariffs as an investment opportunity instead of a cost, and balancing the rate of tariff increase could be another tool for the central banks to encourage growth. > Worse, these policies also tend to lead to war. One of the big reasons we've had relative peace between world powers for the last 75 years is that our economies have become closely intertwined, so no politician or corporation can stomach the economic costs of war. If global trade starts to break down we'll head directly into World War 3. That's why increasing tariffs slowly is appealing; it doesn't destroy global trade by disruption. Countries with minimal labor laws would face a choice; fully isolate (like North Korea) or gradually improve human/labor rights to remain a functional part of the global economy.

jolux 5y ago

> It's politically unpopular for the same reason action on climate change is unpopular: it makes everything more expensive. You've got this backwards. Both taking action on climate change and buying American are popular [1][2]. Furthermore I don't know of much evidence that suggests taking action on climate change will raise prices. But you are right about protectionism in that way. That's the biggest problem here. In the abstract I see no reason that global trade should breakdown if a significant majority of people in the world can agree about labor standards, human rights standards, etc. In the specific, I believe this was one of the major original purposes of the UN, though unfortunately the world we live in remains one in which the abuses of great powers go unchecked because the cost of nuclear war is too high. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-madeinusa-poll/americans-want-the-government-to-buy-u-s-made-goods-even-if-they-cost-more-idUSKBN2BM1DA https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-madeinusa-pol...

detaro 5y ago
having the government buy American is popular according to that link, not actually doing it yourself.
- jolux 5y ago
  This is a difficult question to poll because in a great sense actions speak louder than words, but what information I can find suggests similar preferences among consumers themselves: https://review.chicagobooth.edu/marketing/2020/article/made-usa-label-boosts-prices-just-little https://review.chicagobooth.edu/marketing/2020/article/made-... See also: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-buyamerican-poll/americans-want-u-s-goods-but-not-willing-to-pay-more-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1A3210 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-buyamerican-poll/amer...
  - detaro 5y ago
    I just found it funny that your provided link starts with a sentence containing "has not made Americans more willing to pay extra for U.S.-made goods."
    - jolux 5y ago
      Well, I think the government buying American is probably a precursor for anyone else doing so, because they're not at the constraints of the market to find the cheapest viable product.
      - thatcat 5y ago
        I thought the government had to accept the lowest bid that met specs, though one of those specs could be mfg in USA.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      Tariffs and subsidies are tools we can use if we want to make sure that domestic products can compete with those from abroad - but the current wide allowances for lobbying in the US make any sort of move in that direction extremely difficult.

WoodenChair 5y ago

> It's not a question of demand. A negligible number of customers care where their product is manufactured. They care only about price, which is why manufacturing moved overseas in the first place. Your first paragraph contradicts itself. Not enough customers demanding their product be made in USA is the very definition of a demand problem.

ludocode 5y ago
> Not enough customers demanding their product be made in USA is the very definition of a demand problem. The context was Teslas. The parent comment suggested that Teslas can be manufactured in volume because there is sufficient demand. While true, the demand for Teslas is not due to the fact that they are manufactured in the US. Tesla buyers mostly don't care where they are manufactured; they just want a fast and stylish electric car. The demand is not for US-manufactured Teslas. It's just for Teslas. I agree with you that demand specifically for domestic products does not exist, but this is obvious. Demand for domestic products is not really a thing in the first place because the place of manufacture is not a product differentiator for most consumers. There are very few ways to realistically control direct demand for domestic products; laws that force the government to buy domestic are about it. You have to create demand for domestic products indirectly by making them cheaper than the alternative because that's all that consumers really care about. This is why it's pointless to talk about "customers demanding their product be made in USA". It's not a question of demand because the vast majority of consumers do not and will never care where a product is manufactured.

bserge 5y ago

> They care only about price, which is why manufacturing moved overseas in the first place. I was under the impression that most of the money saved that way went straight into the companies' (offshore) accounts and CXO's pockets.

m-ee 5y ago

People said the exact same thing about international trade making war impossible before both world wars.

benlivengood 5y ago

> Unfortunately such policies lead to higher costs for consumers and lower economic growth. Money circulates faster with more well-paying jobs which would result from increasing on-shore manufacturing. I think the key is to phase tariffs in linearly over several years (perhaps even decades). That gives the domestic economy time to adjust wages for the higher price of domestic manufacturing and doesn't have an immediate negative result on foreign countries. It should drive foreign countries to improve human rights and labor laws to avoid tariffs and stay in the market. Domestic investors should see increasing tariffs as an investment opportunity instead of a cost, and balancing the rate of tariff increase could be another tool for the central banks to encourage growth. > Worse, these policies also tend to lead to war. One of the big reasons we've had relative peace between world powers for the last 75 years is that our economies have become closely intertwined, so no politician or corporation can stomach the economic costs of war. If global trade starts to break down we'll head directly into World War 3. That's why increasing tariffs slowly is appealing; it doesn't destroy global trade by disruption. Countries with minimal labor laws would face a choice; fully isolate (like North Korea) or gradually improve human/labor rights to remain a functional part of the global economy.