3 ms·

Also, shipyards that recently built one are more likely to get contracts to build more. Because other countries will be facing the same question.

• bruce511 2y ago
  More likely though isn't the same as likely. If I'm going to buy an icebreaker from a foreign supplier, sure the US is in the market, but they're still more expensive and take longer than Finland. To get good at something, good enough that you're competitive on the world stage, you need to be building lots, iterating, getting feedback and so on. The US coast guard doesn't have the need to kick-start that sort of scale of development. So it takes a fortune (think 10s of billions) to catch up to the Finns. But the headline number is somewhat irrelevant. 300m sent to Finland is "gone forever". 1.1 billion spent in the US boosts the economy, and ultimately works its way back to the govt in taxes. The benefits have little to do with "preserving skillset" and more to do with the economic benefit of circulating another billion in the local economy.
  • bostik 2y ago
    > But the headline number is somewhat irrelevant. 300m sent to Finland is "gone forever". Even with the quotes, as a Finn I find this statement rather tasteless. Or would you also claim that cross-border trade with more nearby nations is "money gone forever"?
    • skinkestek 2y ago
      Some people seems to be willing to spend significantly more if it means no one else makes a profit from it. On a national level I understand the interest to keep investments within country borders. For a random person or company I don't get it (except for very specific cases like voting with our wallets against dictatorships like China).
    • bruce511 2y ago
      I didn't mean it to be tasteless, and it wasn't personal against Finland. My point was that "internal spending" and "external spending " are not (economically the same thing. Obviously, Finland wants to export - tests a given - but the price tag of a Finnish ship and a US ship are not the same unit.
      • bostik 2y ago
        No worries. From a national sovereignity perspective, I can see what you were trying to say. Especially with the growing international tensions, wanting to maintain an industrial and manufacturing base is a rational take. FTR: I think that the CHIPS act is based on good intentions. US has identified advanced semiconductors as a strategic, critical base. Trying to in-shore the manufacturing and skills is clearly a desirable goal. But in case of something as niche and "bulky", ice-breakers feel more like they'd fall under comparative advantage. You can look at China. They have had a persistent strategic goal to build up their advanced manufacturing base, and after sustaining that for >30 years, are now at the position where they can start to close off foreign suppliers. That shows roughly how long similar shift of balance could be expected to take if you wanted to counteract.
  • Ekaros 2y ago
    You get 300 million asset. If that asset produces more than 300 million in economic value you would have generally missed, isn't it still decent investment? If you do not need icebreaking, why spend money in first place? And instead use it somewhere that you get both benefits from.
  • matips 2y ago
    >But the headline number is somewhat irrelevant. 300m sent to Finland is "gone forever". You can make a deal that US buy icebreaker for 300M from Finland and Finns buy weapons from US for 300M. They need it because of Russia and you boosts US economy in other areas.
    • bruce511 2y ago
      And foreign deals are often set up this way.... if this can be arranged. It's seldom that straightforward though.
• saati 2y ago
  What other countries? There are maybe 10 that care even a little a bit about icebreakers.