5 ms·

> 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 tasteles

by 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.

by bostik 2y ago

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.