4 ms·

Its easy to throw around words like “stupid” on the internet, especially with hindsight, but how could it have been anything but a complex decision estimating v

Its easy to throw around words like “stupid” on the internet, especially with hindsight, but how could it have been anything but a complex decision estimating values for many variables? Would they have been able to hit a competitive price while maintaining environmental regs and paying a domestic workforce, would china end up the only other supplier in the world? Can government subsidies be counted on to last multiple administrations?

BLKNSLVR 2y ago
Strong disagree, this was obvious if not from the very start, then as soon as the first company that relocated manufacturing started making ridiculous profits. Keeping the retail prices the same whilst more-than-decimating the manufacturing cost? How could it not be obvious that anyone and everyone would follow once there was a proof of concept. When capitalism is measured on incredibly short term performance, with no consideration of long term sustainability or national interest or maintenance of national skills and capabilities. This has been going on since well before the world wide web became accessible to most Western households. Nike started doing it in the 70s and they weren't the first. I've long been confused* to why there was no legislation to prevent "local" companies from giving away the keys to their kingdoms to foreign countries. *Not really, politicians are just as short-term motivated as business owners. It made sense. But the chickens are now coming home to roost, and they're shitting all over the place and the unprecedented profits have been spent on fancy plastic toys (that are now mostly landfill) instead of any kind of preparation for the inevitable tsunami of chicken shit.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  > I've long been confused* to why there was no legislation to prevent "local" companies from giving away the keys to their kingdoms to foreign countries. >*Not really, politicians are just as short-term motivated as business owners. Voters also like lower prices today in exchange for higher volatility tomorrow. No one was forced to shop at national businesses rather than local businesses, but people like the lower prices of larger businesses.
  - fooqux 2y ago
    I was taught during grade school that capitalism drives lower prices, and since capitalism is good, it's alluded that paying less money for a product of similar value is almost a moral obligation. That company selling the "same thing" for more is obviously fleecing people and should go bankrupt. That model may have worked hundreds of years ago when comparing horseshoes made by local blacksmiths, and possibly still held up when comparing mousetraps made in the same state / country. But it has issues when applied globally, and we have not adopted fast enough.
    - lazide 2y ago
      If you can pay $5 for something instead of $10, why wouldn’t that be better for you?
      - mindslight 2y ago
        It's better for you individually-immediately, but on the larger scale the government policy is that average prices cannot go down. So then the government created enough new money to make the lower priced item cost $10. And due to kayfabe "fiscal responsibility", the government couldn't even spend that new money (representing shared surplus from tech/market progress) on useful things, and instead just dumped it into the housing bubble.
        lazide 2y ago
        What, consequences?!! In my economy? Clearly that isn’t actually why and it’s all the fault of (checks notes) illegal immigrants. I’ll warm up the military transports right now!
      - mrguyorama 2y ago
        Which is why it should be legal to buy stolen goods!
      - 1oooqooq 2y ago
        as if you ever read the ingredients label of you soap or shampoos....
- michaelt 2y ago
  > I've long been confused to why there was no legislation to prevent "local" companies from giving away the keys to their kingdoms to foreign countries. For a long time this seemed like an exceptionally good deal for the US. Other countries dig up their rare natural resources, send them to us, and in exchange we send them intangible products like Microsoft Office licenses? That's a great deal. You're literally getting something for nothing. Other countries' workers make refrigerators for us, sell them to us really cheaply, then they also send a load of the profits back to us because they licensed an American-owned design and brand? You cannot lose. Meanwhile, supposedly the skilled, high-added-value manufacturing would stay in the West with our educated workforce. And to top it all off, this was supposedly making the poor countries less poor and more democratic as you can't trade without free-flowing communication and a prosperous middle class. Of course in practice this has gone badly in the long term. The current generations are certainly feeling the consequences. But for the previous generations? They got the highest standard of living in the world!
  - corimaith 2y ago
    Well the idea was those manufacturing countries would also transition to consumption based economies, paving the way for the next generation of manufacturers to then rise up the value chain. Once everyone was rich then I guess we would start relying on automation. People forget that the flipside of keeping manufacturing in America is that it would have denied the ability for the global poor to rise up. And they should, they deserve that right too. What the neoliberals underestimated was the extent of how nationalistic these rising countries could become, as they instead not to transition but to instead keep on their low end manufacturing while simultaneously competing in the high end. Namely, it wasn't about improving the lives of their citizens, it was about achieving total control over the supply chain. The sad part of this situation is that for all the global south cheers the "decline of the west", with the closing of the American market and the utter dominance of China, the economic ladders up may have been forever broken.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      > What the neoliberals underestimated was the extent of how nationalistic these rising countries could become Yeah that was totally unprecedented.. If you ignore examples of exactly that happening at other times in history, like Japan. They went from a very poor feudal society where most people lived as peasants society to an industrial society able to seriously challenge America in less than a century. Violent rabid nationalism came with and facilitated that transition.
- blitzar 2y ago
  > I've long been confused* to why there was no legislation to prevent "local" companies from giving away the keys to their kingdoms to foreign countries Sounds like you dont want freedom and capitalism anymore.

BLKNSLVR 2y ago

Strong disagree, this was obvious if not from the very start, then as soon as the first company that relocated manufacturing started making ridiculous profits. Keeping the retail prices the same whilst more-than-decimating the manufacturing cost? How could it not be obvious that anyone and everyone would follow once there was a proof of concept. When capitalism is measured on incredibly short term performance, with no consideration of long term sustainability or national interest or maintenance of national skills and capabilities. This has been going on since well before the world wide web became accessible to most Western households. Nike started doing it in the 70s and they weren't the first. I've long been confused* to why there was no legislation to prevent "local" companies from giving away the keys to their kingdoms to foreign countries. *Not really, politicians are just as short-term motivated as business owners. It made sense. But the chickens are now coming home to roost, and they're shitting all over the place and the unprecedented profits have been spent on fancy plastic toys (that are now mostly landfill) instead of any kind of preparation for the inevitable tsunami of chicken shit.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
> I've long been confused* to why there was no legislation to prevent "local" companies from giving away the keys to their kingdoms to foreign countries. >*Not really, politicians are just as short-term motivated as business owners. Voters also like lower prices today in exchange for higher volatility tomorrow. No one was forced to shop at national businesses rather than local businesses, but people like the lower prices of larger businesses.
- fooqux 2y ago
  I was taught during grade school that capitalism drives lower prices, and since capitalism is good, it's alluded that paying less money for a product of similar value is almost a moral obligation. That company selling the "same thing" for more is obviously fleecing people and should go bankrupt. That model may have worked hundreds of years ago when comparing horseshoes made by local blacksmiths, and possibly still held up when comparing mousetraps made in the same state / country. But it has issues when applied globally, and we have not adopted fast enough.
  - lazide 2y ago
    If you can pay $5 for something instead of $10, why wouldn’t that be better for you?
    - mindslight 2y ago
      It's better for you individually-immediately, but on the larger scale the government policy is that average prices cannot go down. So then the government created enough new money to make the lower priced item cost $10. And due to kayfabe "fiscal responsibility", the government couldn't even spend that new money (representing shared surplus from tech/market progress) on useful things, and instead just dumped it into the housing bubble.
      - lazide 2y ago
        What, consequences?!! In my economy? Clearly that isn’t actually why and it’s all the fault of (checks notes) illegal immigrants. I’ll warm up the military transports right now!
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      Which is why it should be legal to buy stolen goods!
    - 1oooqooq 2y ago
      as if you ever read the ingredients label of you soap or shampoos....
michaelt 2y ago
> I've long been confused to why there was no legislation to prevent "local" companies from giving away the keys to their kingdoms to foreign countries. For a long time this seemed like an exceptionally good deal for the US. Other countries dig up their rare natural resources, send them to us, and in exchange we send them intangible products like Microsoft Office licenses? That's a great deal. You're literally getting something for nothing. Other countries' workers make refrigerators for us, sell them to us really cheaply, then they also send a load of the profits back to us because they licensed an American-owned design and brand? You cannot lose. Meanwhile, supposedly the skilled, high-added-value manufacturing would stay in the West with our educated workforce. And to top it all off, this was supposedly making the poor countries less poor and more democratic as you can't trade without free-flowing communication and a prosperous middle class. Of course in practice this has gone badly in the long term. The current generations are certainly feeling the consequences. But for the previous generations? They got the highest standard of living in the world!
- corimaith 2y ago
  Well the idea was those manufacturing countries would also transition to consumption based economies, paving the way for the next generation of manufacturers to then rise up the value chain. Once everyone was rich then I guess we would start relying on automation. People forget that the flipside of keeping manufacturing in America is that it would have denied the ability for the global poor to rise up. And they should, they deserve that right too. What the neoliberals underestimated was the extent of how nationalistic these rising countries could become, as they instead not to transition but to instead keep on their low end manufacturing while simultaneously competing in the high end. Namely, it wasn't about improving the lives of their citizens, it was about achieving total control over the supply chain. The sad part of this situation is that for all the global south cheers the "decline of the west", with the closing of the American market and the utter dominance of China, the economic ladders up may have been forever broken.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    > What the neoliberals underestimated was the extent of how nationalistic these rising countries could become Yeah that was totally unprecedented.. If you ignore examples of exactly that happening at other times in history, like Japan. They went from a very poor feudal society where most people lived as peasants society to an industrial society able to seriously challenge America in less than a century. Violent rabid nationalism came with and facilitated that transition.
blitzar 2y ago
> I've long been confused* to why there was no legislation to prevent "local" companies from giving away the keys to their kingdoms to foreign countries Sounds like you dont want freedom and capitalism anymore.