3 ms·
> Supply chain is really really really hard. Keeping it warm for decades is really really really expensive. I’m glad this realization is making its way to the
by xattt 3y ago
> Supply chain is really really really hard. Keeping it warm for decades is really really really expensive.
I’m glad this realization is making its way to the knowledge of the general population.
People have been seduced by cheap foreign goods, and balked at the idea of something costing more than the lowest cost.
Come to think of it, I am wondering if making cheap industrial labour generally available was a “soft power” exercised by some countries. This enabled the dismantling of flexible Western production capabilities, increased reliance on these countries, and dissuaded aggression towards them.
Also see the reliance of Europe on Russian fossil fuel imports.
- sitkack 3y ago> cheap industrial labour generally available was a “soft power” Of course it is. But US and Global Capitalism fought tooth and nail to get into China. The manufacturing base in the US was dismantled (literally) on purpose by American billionaires and the politicians they owned.
- ren_engineer 3y agothe initial plan made sense as a way to weaken the Soviets, but after the USSR collapsed in the 90s the US should have pulled out and also not let China into the World Trade Organization unless they played fair. Going to be seen as an all time historical blunder. Tiananmen square made it clear China wasn't going to change and the idea that "improving economy leads to democracy" has literally never happened unless that nation was occupied by the US military like Germany and Japan
- sitkack 3y agoThe US never cared about Democracy, we don't defend it, or support it. The only thing the the US cares about is markets.
- throwawayswiss 3y ago[flagged]
- Waterluvian 3y agoI feel this is true. I think one effect is that when merchandise and fossil fuels are super cheap for long enough, people stop perceiving them as being super cheap, and any return to a healthy state of more domestic production and conservation is seen as things becoming super expensive. And then they’re bigmad and someone else ought to pay.
- m3047 3y agoMy general understanding is that "dismantling of flexible Western production capabilities, increased reliance on these countries, and dissuaded aggression towards them" was the whole point of global supply chains; literally the doctrine. Not sure about the implicit attempt to address power imbalance: if you invest your IP in some "underdeveloped" country and then they decide to sell chips to all comers, or not to sell to you and sell exclusively to your global competitors something is going to give... or break. Or get broken. But that's literally how it was sold: give up your industrial base for a safer world. (We thank you for your patriotism, former industrial worker of the western world.)
- jaredhallen 3y agoThis is true. It was an explicit tactic. Also, the plan was to help develop China as an ally against Russia. So we setup trade conditions that were favorable to China. And it worked beyond all expectations. But now they're not much of an ally. And we're having a hard time returning to balanced trade conditions.