4 ms·

Indeed. This seems similar to the hand-wringing I see about China's government subsidized manufacturing being "unfair". Actually government subsidized manufactu

Indeed. This seems similar to the hand-wringing I see about China's government subsidized manufacturing being "unfair". Actually government subsidized manufacturing is a great idea and its the entire reason we have a space program!

Fauntleroy 2y ago
Well, it _is_ "unfair"—it's just not "unfair" to the country doing it.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  American Businesses: “How are we supposed to profit if you don’t govern poorly like we do?!” Your country can do well too if you invest for the long term instead of chasing quarterly numbers and strip mining the economy.
bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago
You think China subsidizing manufacturers so they make cheaper sneakers is similar to the Apollo program? That one I'd never heard before. Did you come up with it yourself or is that a take you've seen somewhere?
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  Parent didn't say sneakers, but subsidizing manufacturing to retain the ability to do is a jobs program that also has strategic benefits. We already kind of do it in areas like defense. Other manufacturing areas like medicine, electronics etc. would actually not be a bad idea.
- tivert 2y ago
  > You think China subsidizing manufacturers so they make cheaper sneakers... If you think China is only subsidizing the manufacturing of stupid things like sneakers, you're sorely misinformed. They pretty much have a lock on solar panel manufacturing, due to subsidies, and I think they drove most of their Western competitors out of business. That's kind of strategic industry, with the green energy transition. IIRC, they're also getting there with batteries and EVs, but at least the West is starting to use protectionism again to protect that area. IIRC, one of the nice things about China is they don't really care if these companies are profitable. They'll setup a situation of vicious cut-throat competition and overcapacity, instead of a few complacent but profitable oligopolies like the West seems to prefer. That means they win at the national level. > ...is similar to the Apollo program? The Apollo program was like 50 years ago. The US needs to stop leaning on its past glories to try to make its complacency comfortable, and instead actually deal with its problems.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- TaylorAlexander 2y ago
  Investing in manufacturing capacity is a general tactic of industrial nations. I am of course referring to valuable Chinese industry like electric cars, batteries, solar, bullet trains, etc. Just as the USA saw value in stimulating an aerospace industry, China sees value in stimulating a broad manufacturing base and expertise on energy related production. My claim is that this isn’t unfair, this is standard industrial policy. Except the USA has literally forgotten the value of industrial policy so when someone does it properly we misinterpret it as cheating. You may appreciate this economics lecture on industrial policy: https://youtu.be/V6egGoCrbIo https://youtu.be/V6egGoCrbIo
teyc 2y ago
More like incentivising R&D so they move up the value chain. Generate demand for indigenous product when economies of scale aren’t there (see secret history of SV). Encourage internal competition so that it is innovate or die.

Fauntleroy 2y ago

Well, it _is_ "unfair"—it's just not "unfair" to the country doing it.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
American Businesses: “How are we supposed to profit if you don’t govern poorly like we do?!” Your country can do well too if you invest for the long term instead of chasing quarterly numbers and strip mining the economy.

bdjsiqoocwk 2y ago

You think China subsidizing manufacturers so they make cheaper sneakers is similar to the Apollo program? That one I'd never heard before. Did you come up with it yourself or is that a take you've seen somewhere?

darth_avocado 2y ago
Parent didn't say sneakers, but subsidizing manufacturing to retain the ability to do is a jobs program that also has strategic benefits. We already kind of do it in areas like defense. Other manufacturing areas like medicine, electronics etc. would actually not be a bad idea.
tivert 2y ago
> You think China subsidizing manufacturers so they make cheaper sneakers... If you think China is only subsidizing the manufacturing of stupid things like sneakers, you're sorely misinformed. They pretty much have a lock on solar panel manufacturing, due to subsidies, and I think they drove most of their Western competitors out of business. That's kind of strategic industry, with the green energy transition. IIRC, they're also getting there with batteries and EVs, but at least the West is starting to use protectionism again to protect that area. IIRC, one of the nice things about China is they don't really care if these companies are profitable. They'll setup a situation of vicious cut-throat competition and overcapacity, instead of a few complacent but profitable oligopolies like the West seems to prefer. That means they win at the national level. > ...is similar to the Apollo program? The Apollo program was like 50 years ago. The US needs to stop leaning on its past glories to try to make its complacency comfortable, and instead actually deal with its problems.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
TaylorAlexander 2y ago
Investing in manufacturing capacity is a general tactic of industrial nations. I am of course referring to valuable Chinese industry like electric cars, batteries, solar, bullet trains, etc. Just as the USA saw value in stimulating an aerospace industry, China sees value in stimulating a broad manufacturing base and expertise on energy related production. My claim is that this isn’t unfair, this is standard industrial policy. Except the USA has literally forgotten the value of industrial policy so when someone does it properly we misinterpret it as cheating. You may appreciate this economics lecture on industrial policy: https://youtu.be/V6egGoCrbIo https://youtu.be/V6egGoCrbIo

teyc 2y ago

More like incentivising R&D so they move up the value chain. Generate demand for indigenous product when economies of scale aren’t there (see secret history of SV). Encourage internal competition so that it is innovate or die.