2 ms·
"Next year or two" is extremely unlikely. The US is absolutely no going to switch back to a manufacturing base. It's only attempting to gain leverage against ad
by tootie 4y ago
"Next year or two" is extremely unlikely. The US is absolutely no going to switch back to a manufacturing base. It's only attempting to gain leverage against adversaries when it comes to critical supply chain components. China is all but guaranteed to see slowing growth compared to the past 40 years simply because there aren't enough farmers left to exploit for cheap labor and living standards are already so much higher. They'll be in for mild economic winter then emerge just fine. Famine seems incredibly unlikely anywhere in the world.
- nostrebored 4y agoBut critical supply chain components are more frequent than people would like to think. In a period where sea freight becomes less stable, it's not a question of 'what goods can we not live without' but 'what goods can we not live without if delivery isn't stable and regular'? The U.S. is already losing sea hegemony. This was a key piece that enabled globalization to begin with.
- azemetre 4y agoDo you have examples of freight becoming unstable due to military actions and not supply constraints? The de globalization thesis makes sense but I don’t see examples of regional powers flexing their muscles causing supply chain problems, at least not publicly. I suppose Russia is an obvious example in the EU but are their other examples?
- pasttense01 4y agoThe answer to 'what goods can we not live without if delivery isn't stable and regular' is that you go back to the traditional approach which was used for centuries when delivery wasn't stable and regular: simply keep large inventories of the goods. [In recent decades business switched to Just In Time, but this has been shown not to work with irregular delivery--so business is going back to the traditional methods.]