5 ms·

Having your own manufacturing and industrial base is also very, very important from a geopolitical perspective. (as european countries have come to realise afte

Having your own manufacturing and industrial base is also very, very important from a geopolitical perspective. (as european countries have come to realise after the invasion of ukraine). you need your own industrial base to manufacture and develop the machinery you need to defend and project hard and soft power across the globe. Globalisation was supposed to "solve this issue" by making economies so interconnected that this would be no longer needed. Sadly, we have learned that that simply does not hold up.

mmooss 2y ago
> Sadly, we have learned that that simply does not hold up. We've learned that the world now is more divided and violent than we had hoped, with the revisionist Chinese and Russians on one side and the US Republicans on the other (or sometimes on the same side as Russia!) So we depend more on the military, and also we can't depend on China's manufacturing to supply military goods. But can the US depend on Europe's, South Korea's, Japan's, Canada's, Australia's? I think so. Also, efficiency is everything in the competition with China: China, with ~ 4x the population of the US, can outproduce the US with just over 1/4 of the US's productivity. The US must maximize not only volume but productivity. Adding the countries listed above greatly increases volume, and the US can't afford the productivity cost of spending on inefficient manufacturers - the US needs to maximize output per dollar.
- philwelch 2y ago
  > But can the US depend on Europe's, South Korea's, Japan's, Canada's, Australia's? I think so. If our goal is to be robust against the risks of a great power conflict, we can't necessarily depend on manufacturing from these countries because a great power conflict might either overrun or cut off our supply lines to these countries. In fact, control over East Asian shipping lanes is the central point of the current cold war with China.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    I agree there is some risk for the East Asian countries. I think China would be hard pressed to stop all that production and trade, but certainly they could impact it and who can say what a 21st century war would look like? Still, it's a risk, not a deal killer. China could bomb US production too.
    - umbra07 2y ago
      China can't bomb American production unless we suffer absolutely catastrophic, unimaginable, WW3-escalatory levels of naval losses in the Pacific (because Chinese bombers from the Chinese mainland don't have the range to reach the American mainland).
      - mmooss 2y ago
        I'm not sure that's true. The US can't defend an entire Pacific front, obviously, and has a shortage of ships, many of which will be busy doing other things. Anyway, I was thinking of missiles, which China has many of, and which can reach the US (including from submarines and other ships that can maneuver closer to the US).
        philwelch 2y ago
        There is close to zero escalation room between Chinese missile strikes on the US mainland and nuclear war. If we detect incoming missiles from China there’s a good chance the US assumes nuclear warheads and makes a retaliatory strike. That’s a real risk, but because neither side of a conflict wants to actually escalate to a nuclear exchange, it is not very likely that China will launch missiles at the mainland US. (Likewise I think the US is unlikely to strike mainland China.) Conversely, whichever side maintains naval superiority in the western Pacific Ocean can cut off any supply chains to and from Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and mainland China itself, without the risk of nuclear escalation. And as I stated, this is the entire issue. If you control the seas of East Asia, you basically control the world.
- aylmao 2y ago
  I think I only partially agree with this. I do think the US can depend on Europe, Canada and Mexico. South Korea, Japan, and Australia are far from the USA and close to China. They have high incentive stay friendly with China. I do think China can easily outproduce the US. But I don't know that the US needs to maximize output per dollar. The USA can print dollars, and already creates a whole bunch of dollars out of thin air every year. The inflationary effect of printing a few more billion, specifically to maintain local shipbuilding capabilities, might be worth it. Just going for dollar efficiency has led the USA to de-industrialize, perhaps too much. The status quo can't be maintained, that's for sure.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > South Korea, Japan, and Australia are far from the USA and close to China. They have high incentive stay friendly with China. While that was to some degree a concern years ago, before Biden took office, those countries have decisively and openly taken sides with the US and are members of a network of alliances that also includes The Philipines and, to a degree, India. The US has been building and improving bases, military training, etc. in and with those countries and all over the region For example, there is AUKUS, a major agreement between the US, Australia, and also the UK, for Australia to become the only country outside the UK to receive one of the US crown jewels, nuclear submarine technology. Australia also is hosting an expanding number of US bases. > I don't know that the US needs to maximize output per dollar. The USA can print dollars, and already creates a whole bunch of dollars out of thin air every year. The inflationary effect of printing a few more billion, specifically to maintain local shipbuilding capabilities, might be worth it. The economics is trickier than that: Production is real economic value; printing money is just a statistic. Productivity = output/dollars. If you increase the dollars in that equation, you don't change the output and you reduce the nominal productivity number (though usually it's measured using inflation-adjusted dollars, so it's really unchanged). The US can increase output by borrowing more dollars, increasing the volume of investment in shipyards without increasing productivity. But borrowing does cost something - IIRC the debt payments will soon exceed the military budget - and can cause inflation, which eventually negatively impacts output. In the end, China may be able to invest far more. > Just going for dollar efficiency has led the USA to de-industrialize, perhaps too much. What connection is there?
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > the revisionist Chinese and Russians Or perhaps "revanchist", meaning that they want to conquer some territory they believe (or at least pretend) used to be theirs.
- danenania 2y ago
  If you're measuring in decades, can you take any alliance for granted? Things can change in unpredictable ways. Taking Europe as an example, if Trump or someone like him decides to leave Europe to its own devices while facing an aggressive Russia, we could see massive re-militarization. Who can say where a shift like this would lead? It's easy to view these countries as permanent allies when they depend on us for security, but they might not be so cooperative once they can stand up for themselves militarily. This applies to Japan and South Korea as well vis a vis China/NK.
  - ywvcbk 2y ago
    > Things can change in unpredictable ways. When you do stupid and unpredictable things? Certainly. But that seems like an internal US problem. Of choice rebuilding local manufacturing might be easier than fixing that in theory. OTH the longterm cost would like be much higher due to lower global stability.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    NATO, as well as the rest of the Atlantic relationships that form the 'West', has worked very well for 90 years, and NATO is still growing and strengthening. Anything can happen, but that's not rational. Rationally, we need to anticipate what is likely and not treat risk as if it's all random, coin-flip, unpredictable chaos.
    - danenania 2y ago
      To me it seems more rational to be ready for a wide range of outcomes than to assume the next 90 years will be similar to the previous 90 years.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        I agree; I meant that we need to rationally assess what outcomes are more likely and plan according to that, not treat every outcome as equally likely. And not only plan, as if we are passive victims of history, but make it happen - invest in NATO, etc.
shiroiushi 2y ago
The US doesn't have too much trouble manufacturing things like aircraft carriers and submarines and 5th-gen fighter jets and missiles, and indeed builds plenty of those, even exporting some. It does have trouble building an icebreaker, but it doesn't need those very often, so it can't keep any company interested in the business when it only wants one every ~30 years or whatever. It doesn't make sense to spend a ton of money just to build one ship, when they can just buy it from Finland.
- mmooss 2y ago
  FWIW, the US does have problems producing ships. For example, the US military and Congress very much want to increase the rate of submarine production, and haven't been able to do it. If you look at current news, you can see the desperate measures they are pursuing.

mmooss 2y ago

> Sadly, we have learned that that simply does not hold up. We've learned that the world now is more divided and violent than we had hoped, with the revisionist Chinese and Russians on one side and the US Republicans on the other (or sometimes on the same side as Russia!) So we depend more on the military, and also we can't depend on China's manufacturing to supply military goods. But can the US depend on Europe's, South Korea's, Japan's, Canada's, Australia's? I think so. Also, efficiency is everything in the competition with China: China, with ~ 4x the population of the US, can outproduce the US with just over 1/4 of the US's productivity. The US must maximize not only volume but productivity. Adding the countries listed above greatly increases volume, and the US can't afford the productivity cost of spending on inefficient manufacturers - the US needs to maximize output per dollar.

philwelch 2y ago
> But can the US depend on Europe's, South Korea's, Japan's, Canada's, Australia's? I think so. If our goal is to be robust against the risks of a great power conflict, we can't necessarily depend on manufacturing from these countries because a great power conflict might either overrun or cut off our supply lines to these countries. In fact, control over East Asian shipping lanes is the central point of the current cold war with China.
- mmooss 2y ago
  I agree there is some risk for the East Asian countries. I think China would be hard pressed to stop all that production and trade, but certainly they could impact it and who can say what a 21st century war would look like? Still, it's a risk, not a deal killer. China could bomb US production too.
  - umbra07 2y ago
    China can't bomb American production unless we suffer absolutely catastrophic, unimaginable, WW3-escalatory levels of naval losses in the Pacific (because Chinese bombers from the Chinese mainland don't have the range to reach the American mainland).
    - mmooss 2y ago
      I'm not sure that's true. The US can't defend an entire Pacific front, obviously, and has a shortage of ships, many of which will be busy doing other things. Anyway, I was thinking of missiles, which China has many of, and which can reach the US (including from submarines and other ships that can maneuver closer to the US).
      - philwelch 2y ago
        There is close to zero escalation room between Chinese missile strikes on the US mainland and nuclear war. If we detect incoming missiles from China there’s a good chance the US assumes nuclear warheads and makes a retaliatory strike. That’s a real risk, but because neither side of a conflict wants to actually escalate to a nuclear exchange, it is not very likely that China will launch missiles at the mainland US. (Likewise I think the US is unlikely to strike mainland China.) Conversely, whichever side maintains naval superiority in the western Pacific Ocean can cut off any supply chains to and from Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and mainland China itself, without the risk of nuclear escalation. And as I stated, this is the entire issue. If you control the seas of East Asia, you basically control the world.
aylmao 2y ago
I think I only partially agree with this. I do think the US can depend on Europe, Canada and Mexico. South Korea, Japan, and Australia are far from the USA and close to China. They have high incentive stay friendly with China. I do think China can easily outproduce the US. But I don't know that the US needs to maximize output per dollar. The USA can print dollars, and already creates a whole bunch of dollars out of thin air every year. The inflationary effect of printing a few more billion, specifically to maintain local shipbuilding capabilities, might be worth it. Just going for dollar efficiency has led the USA to de-industrialize, perhaps too much. The status quo can't be maintained, that's for sure.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > South Korea, Japan, and Australia are far from the USA and close to China. They have high incentive stay friendly with China. While that was to some degree a concern years ago, before Biden took office, those countries have decisively and openly taken sides with the US and are members of a network of alliances that also includes The Philipines and, to a degree, India. The US has been building and improving bases, military training, etc. in and with those countries and all over the region For example, there is AUKUS, a major agreement between the US, Australia, and also the UK, for Australia to become the only country outside the UK to receive one of the US crown jewels, nuclear submarine technology. Australia also is hosting an expanding number of US bases. > I don't know that the US needs to maximize output per dollar. The USA can print dollars, and already creates a whole bunch of dollars out of thin air every year. The inflationary effect of printing a few more billion, specifically to maintain local shipbuilding capabilities, might be worth it. The economics is trickier than that: Production is real economic value; printing money is just a statistic. Productivity = output/dollars. If you increase the dollars in that equation, you don't change the output and you reduce the nominal productivity number (though usually it's measured using inflation-adjusted dollars, so it's really unchanged). The US can increase output by borrowing more dollars, increasing the volume of investment in shipyards without increasing productivity. But borrowing does cost something - IIRC the debt payments will soon exceed the military budget - and can cause inflation, which eventually negatively impacts output. In the end, China may be able to invest far more. > Just going for dollar efficiency has led the USA to de-industrialize, perhaps too much. What connection is there?
Terr_ 2y ago
> the revisionist Chinese and Russians Or perhaps "revanchist", meaning that they want to conquer some territory they believe (or at least pretend) used to be theirs.
danenania 2y ago
If you're measuring in decades, can you take any alliance for granted? Things can change in unpredictable ways. Taking Europe as an example, if Trump or someone like him decides to leave Europe to its own devices while facing an aggressive Russia, we could see massive re-militarization. Who can say where a shift like this would lead? It's easy to view these countries as permanent allies when they depend on us for security, but they might not be so cooperative once they can stand up for themselves militarily. This applies to Japan and South Korea as well vis a vis China/NK.
- ywvcbk 2y ago
  > Things can change in unpredictable ways. When you do stupid and unpredictable things? Certainly. But that seems like an internal US problem. Of choice rebuilding local manufacturing might be easier than fixing that in theory. OTH the longterm cost would like be much higher due to lower global stability.
- mmooss 2y ago
  NATO, as well as the rest of the Atlantic relationships that form the 'West', has worked very well for 90 years, and NATO is still growing and strengthening. Anything can happen, but that's not rational. Rationally, we need to anticipate what is likely and not treat risk as if it's all random, coin-flip, unpredictable chaos.
  - danenania 2y ago
    To me it seems more rational to be ready for a wide range of outcomes than to assume the next 90 years will be similar to the previous 90 years.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      I agree; I meant that we need to rationally assess what outcomes are more likely and plan according to that, not treat every outcome as equally likely. And not only plan, as if we are passive victims of history, but make it happen - invest in NATO, etc.

shiroiushi 2y ago

The US doesn't have too much trouble manufacturing things like aircraft carriers and submarines and 5th-gen fighter jets and missiles, and indeed builds plenty of those, even exporting some. It does have trouble building an icebreaker, but it doesn't need those very often, so it can't keep any company interested in the business when it only wants one every ~30 years or whatever. It doesn't make sense to spend a ton of money just to build one ship, when they can just buy it from Finland.

mmooss 2y ago
FWIW, the US does have problems producing ships. For example, the US military and Congress very much want to increase the rate of submarine production, and haven't been able to do it. If you look at current news, you can see the desperate measures they are pursuing.