8 ms·
This is not about national security. This is about being more than a simple consumer. If all your society does is consume, eventually, the money runs out. We n
by avhception 1y ago
This is not about national security. This is about being more than a simple consumer. If all your society does is consume, eventually, the money runs out.
We need to have know-how, talent and all that stuff to create some value.
We're bleeding all these things by the minute, and I don't want to be around when the critical point is reached.
- BLKNSLVR 1y agoThe critical point has been reached. The part you don't want to be around for is following the realisation that there is no path back.
- BobbyTables2 1y agoSeems like it is also bad for the countries actually making stuff too. Where would they be if their exports were significantly slashed? They didn’t develop all that manufacturing capacity to sell domestically.
- ulfw 1y agoWhat a ridiculous argument. So then every single country, every single city, every street should build their own chips, their own iPhones, right? Because wouldn't want to be "a simple consumer" only!
- tetrahedr0n 1y agoIs it ridiculous to expect an economy, such as the US, to produce things of value? The author of the post you are responding to has a valid point. Consumption alone isn't sustainable.
- bloppe 1y agoNobody's arguing in favor of producing nothing. We're just saying there's something called comparative advantage and it's about maximizing efficiency. The US has no business manufacturing chips for strictly economic reasons. But when you consider national security concerns it looks different
- NonHyloMorph 1y agoWhere is that idea coming from that you will be able to choose? Like there will be 2 versions of the same product on the shelves with one reading made in the usa and 5-20% more expensive? That's silly
- bloppe 1y agoLol read the article
- NonHyloMorph 1y agoMight be that the archived version is cut, but can't find anything contradicting the assumption that it will not be the case, that two lines of the same product (one taiwan manufactured and one US manufactured) will exist... which would be silly.
- avhception 1y agoThe argument wasn't about chips specifically, but contributing in general. If your city has a workforce that produces something, you can use the money from selling that stuff to buy, for example, food. If you don't, in western countries, mostly the welfare state steps in. And that's okay, we humans are social animals and I wouldn't have it any other way. But the welfare state has to be backed by productivity. Food and other stuff has to be produced by someone. And when we're talking about international relations, if your exports don't cover your imports, eventually you'll go bankrupt.
- bloppe 1y agoYou're applying macroeconomic theory to microeconomics and it isn't working. individuals will broadly try to maximize their own productivity and minimize their own costs. I'm not gonna pay an extra 20% for the same product everyone else is getting cheaper when my individual contribution to "national economic health" is a drop in the bucket. If that's what society wants then we'll have to tax and subsidize our way there. That's just how macro works
- kelnos 1y agoI think you're oversimplifying the argument in order to win internet points. People of like minds and compatible values can and should work together and form agreements to allow each other to specialize in some ways and play to each others' strengths. But in the West, our values are not compatible with the Chinese government's.
- skeaker 1y agoThis would be a lot more compelling if we didn't already know where most of our money is actually dead-ending at (it's American billionaires).