3 ms·

US industrial output is much lower than it has been relative to our consumption. We should mostly make in the country the industrial products we consume.

CalChris 2y ago
So you agree that we are not deindustrialized. Have a nice day.
nkozyra 2y ago
We are a consumer nation because we are more prosperous than our peers. It's the same reason you buy your food at a grocery store. Generally, the clamoring for domestic production comes down to: 1. Employment. But because we are more prosperous, our employment is aimed elsewhere. We have jobs for people that are less dangerous, less manual, and better paid. 2. A fear that without domestic production, we're at a strategic or military disadvantage. But it's not that we _can't_ produce in an emergency, we can and have historically (see: oil in the 1970s). What protects us most is hegemony, which is threatened by things like across-the-board trade wars. 3. Nostalgia for the good ol days. Look, if you want to work in a factory, we have lots of them here, still. Nobody will stop you from putting on the hard hat. But in all likelihood you have a less stressful, less dangerous, and better-paying job today. There really isn't an argument for this. Our trade was - as all trade is - mutually beneficial. Right now we're pushing the glass to the edge of the table when it was perfectly fine where it was. One other important note: there are things we literally cannot produce domestically due to lack of natural availability (food products, certain textiles)
- rayiner 2y ago
  How can a "prosperous" nation sustainably consume more than it produces?
  - bandrami 2y ago
    Growth. Same reason we never need the national debt to be smaller than it is.
    - nkozyra 2y ago
      I think people look at "national debt" as though we're buying trillions of dollars of stuff and not, fundamentally, two things: 1) mandatory saving for future, like a Social Security for the country (which is ironically also comprised of Social Security) 2) investments made into the future of the country. People buy T-bonds because they're reliable returns. Low risk, relatively low reward. If suddenly our future looks less bright, our debt will slow, but it will be a pretty telling canary in the coal mine. It's baffling to me that people generally don't grasp this. They treat it as though we're just ... buying stuff on a credit card.
  - bandrami 2y ago
    Like this goes back to Adam Smith; these questions have been answered for a long time now
  - nkozyra 2y ago
    As long as there's someone to produce it ... forever? I somehow keep eating 6-10 eggs a week despite not having a chicken.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
fauigerzigerk 2y ago
Manufacturing as a share of GDP is bound to fall. It is inevitably going the way of agriculture. The US is in the envyable position of having developed a globally dominant service sector. Putting that at risk of retaliation by imposing tariffs on all imports, including the lowest margin stuff like screws and bolts is utter insanity. https://www.ft.com/content/aee57e7f-62f1-4a57-a780-341475cd8f89 https://www.ft.com/content/aee57e7f-62f1-4a57-a780-341475cd8...
bandrami 2y ago
We really shouldn't though. Cargo culting "manufacturing jobs" isn't actually a plan. (I also notice nobody is talking about bringing back switchboard jobs or typing pool jobs)
Henchman21 2y ago
> We should mostly make in the country the industrial products we consume. You state this as fact that we should all agree on. Why should we do this? Why not rely on our allies and friends to do what they do well, while we continue to do what we do well? Is trade not the basis of peace? If we stand alone, we must ask why we must.
fzeroracer 2y ago
I'm curious, are you personally volunteering to work in the factories? Or is it a situation where we need industrialization to come back but you personally are not willing to see it through?
- bandrami 2y ago
  I mean, is the poster in question a senior robotics engineer? Because that's whose going to be working in any factories that open. Maybe they'll have some security guards and janitors, I guess
rat87 2y ago
Why? That's what trade is for

CalChris 2y ago

So you agree that we are not deindustrialized. Have a nice day.

nkozyra 2y ago

We are a consumer nation because we are more prosperous than our peers. It's the same reason you buy your food at a grocery store. Generally, the clamoring for domestic production comes down to: 1. Employment. But because we are more prosperous, our employment is aimed elsewhere. We have jobs for people that are less dangerous, less manual, and better paid. 2. A fear that without domestic production, we're at a strategic or military disadvantage. But it's not that we _can't_ produce in an emergency, we can and have historically (see: oil in the 1970s). What protects us most is hegemony, which is threatened by things like across-the-board trade wars. 3. Nostalgia for the good ol days. Look, if you want to work in a factory, we have lots of them here, still. Nobody will stop you from putting on the hard hat. But in all likelihood you have a less stressful, less dangerous, and better-paying job today. There really isn't an argument for this. Our trade was - as all trade is - mutually beneficial. Right now we're pushing the glass to the edge of the table when it was perfectly fine where it was. One other important note: there are things we literally cannot produce domestically due to lack of natural availability (food products, certain textiles)

rayiner 2y ago
How can a "prosperous" nation sustainably consume more than it produces?
- bandrami 2y ago
  Growth. Same reason we never need the national debt to be smaller than it is.
  - nkozyra 2y ago
    I think people look at "national debt" as though we're buying trillions of dollars of stuff and not, fundamentally, two things: 1) mandatory saving for future, like a Social Security for the country (which is ironically also comprised of Social Security) 2) investments made into the future of the country. People buy T-bonds because they're reliable returns. Low risk, relatively low reward. If suddenly our future looks less bright, our debt will slow, but it will be a pretty telling canary in the coal mine. It's baffling to me that people generally don't grasp this. They treat it as though we're just ... buying stuff on a credit card.
- bandrami 2y ago
  Like this goes back to Adam Smith; these questions have been answered for a long time now
- nkozyra 2y ago
  As long as there's someone to produce it ... forever? I somehow keep eating 6-10 eggs a week despite not having a chicken.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

fauigerzigerk 2y ago

Manufacturing as a share of GDP is bound to fall. It is inevitably going the way of agriculture. The US is in the envyable position of having developed a globally dominant service sector. Putting that at risk of retaliation by imposing tariffs on all imports, including the lowest margin stuff like screws and bolts is utter insanity. https://www.ft.com/content/aee57e7f-62f1-4a57-a780-341475cd8f89 https://www.ft.com/content/aee57e7f-62f1-4a57-a780-341475cd8...

bandrami 2y ago

We really shouldn't though. Cargo culting "manufacturing jobs" isn't actually a plan. (I also notice nobody is talking about bringing back switchboard jobs or typing pool jobs)

Henchman21 2y ago

> We should mostly make in the country the industrial products we consume. You state this as fact that we should all agree on. Why should we do this? Why not rely on our allies and friends to do what they do well, while we continue to do what we do well? Is trade not the basis of peace? If we stand alone, we must ask why we must.

fzeroracer 2y ago

I'm curious, are you personally volunteering to work in the factories? Or is it a situation where we need industrialization to come back but you personally are not willing to see it through?

bandrami 2y ago
I mean, is the poster in question a senior robotics engineer? Because that's whose going to be working in any factories that open. Maybe they'll have some security guards and janitors, I guess

rat87 2y ago

Why? That's what trade is for