4 ms·

So many problems here: - You can maintain a strategic capability without destroying your economy along the way. See for example the heavy press program. A stra

by creer 2y ago

So many problems here: - You can maintain a strategic capability without destroying your economy along the way. See for example the heavy press program. A strategic capability, very specific, hard to rebuild. You could certainly apply that to some level of local steel production (which does exist last I looked) - the way US navy ship-building competence is carefully maintained for example. You don't have to inflict that cost on most of the steel used for, say, building and bridges construction. - You can want to run your entire economy on a "self-contained" basis but that goes against all the work that has been done for now decades in the name of economic efficiency. Such an idea will cost you dearly in the final output: standard of living. (For a small country it would be hopeless but both China and the US are large enough that they could aim for complete know-how.) - Everyone is free to compete with anything. And yes, China is large enough that it can try and be effective at everything. Even that, does not negate the benefits of trade. - (The US competitive on civilian vehicles?? Doesn't matter, this is a detail at this stage.) - I don't expect very much of the US military vehicle production - in final assembly or in subsystems - comes from China. What little there is, you could import from Europe. - The US economy "floating on military strength"??

leereeves 2y ago
> The US competitive on civilian vehicles?? Yes, the US is still the second largest producer of civilian vehicles, although I admit, I didn't realize how far ahead China already was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_motor_vehicle_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_motor_veh... > The US economy "floating on military strength"?? Yes, it's our military strength that makes investors trust our currency and allows us to maintain the world's largest trade deficit. Not just our own, but the weapons we provide to friendly governments (mostly dictators) around the world. The rest? You're just ignoring the possibility of either sanctions being imposed on us (cutting off the free trade which, I agree, increases standard of living while it lasts) or fighting a major war (in WW2 the entire civilian production capacity was redirected to the military, a limited "strategic capability" will not be sufficient). In fact, even the recent (very limited) war in Ukraine was more than our current production capacity for ammo could handle.
- creer 2y ago
  > Yes, the US is still the second largest producer of civilian vehicles Isn't that mostly for internal sales? The US export some civilian vehicles, that's true. But my impression is that much of the local production is due to threatening and begging in exchange for somewhat less difficulty for selling within the US. So, "competitive" would be arguable. I'll concede that recent years have shown that stockpile and production capability in particular for ammo is low for an era where - after all - there are circumstance where a lot of ammunition gets expended fast. And THAT very much won't be solved through tariffs. Not even for guidance electronics.

by creer 2y ago

leereeves 2y ago

> The US competitive on civilian vehicles?? Yes, the US is still the second largest producer of civilian vehicles, although I admit, I didn't realize how far ahead China already was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_motor_vehicle_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_motor_veh... > The US economy "floating on military strength"?? Yes, it's our military strength that makes investors trust our currency and allows us to maintain the world's largest trade deficit. Not just our own, but the weapons we provide to friendly governments (mostly dictators) around the world. The rest? You're just ignoring the possibility of either sanctions being imposed on us (cutting off the free trade which, I agree, increases standard of living while it lasts) or fighting a major war (in WW2 the entire civilian production capacity was redirected to the military, a limited "strategic capability" will not be sufficient). In fact, even the recent (very limited) war in Ukraine was more than our current production capacity for ammo could handle.

creer 2y ago
> Yes, the US is still the second largest producer of civilian vehicles Isn't that mostly for internal sales? The US export some civilian vehicles, that's true. But my impression is that much of the local production is due to threatening and begging in exchange for somewhat less difficulty for selling within the US. So, "competitive" would be arguable. I'll concede that recent years have shown that stockpile and production capability in particular for ammo is low for an era where - after all - there are circumstance where a lot of ammunition gets expended fast. And THAT very much won't be solved through tariffs. Not even for guidance electronics.