Remix.run Logo
chii 15 hours ago

> immense supply chain options.

so this begs the question - why isn't the west's own supply chain options as immense? My unresearched answer is that the gov't policies of the west doesn't induce it, while china's gov't does (which includes targeted subsidies, tax incentives and state driven finances).

The "hidden" cost is that the workers in this supply chain isn't as well paid and isn't as powerful as the workers from the west (there's no unions in china for example).

solid_fuel 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> why isn't the west's own supply chain options as immense?

They used to be. Since roughly the 80's, policymakers have decided it is better for the shareholders to outsource most of that industry overseas to China and India and etc, where the labor is cheaper.

Note that workers and especially union members actually have every incentive to keep that production domestic, but shareholders and CEOs profit when they can cut labor costs and the typical Western consumer values cheap products more than the health of domestic industry.

Western industries have been supported by subsidies, tax incentives, bailouts, low interest rates, and a dozen other things from the gov't but the same policies reward outsourcing and financial engineering more than actual production capacity.

12 hours ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
mullingitover 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> why isn't the west's own supply chain options as immense?

The US explicitly chose to be a service economy. China explicitly chose to be a mercantile economy.

The US can absolutely switch paths, it will just take a long time and will require pushing millions into poverty. But we're on track to do it.

myrmidon 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Explicitly chose" is a strong word.

US and China are on completely different stages of industrialization: The US had its massive boom of manufacturing almost a century ago, enriching its population massively. Those rich citizens make the same manufacturing uncompetitive today, because no one is going to work in a factory for $20k/year (median wage in urban China), when he can work for other "rich" people for more than twice as much.

Switching paths is not feasible for the US in the same way that it is not gonna be feasible for China to hold on to all its industry as wages rise: You can't compete globally at "poor people wages" while being "rich", as simple as that.

palmotea 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The US explicitly chose to be a service economy. China explicitly chose to be a mercantile economy.

In other words: the US wants its workers assembling hamburgers, China wants its workers assembling drones.

And when there's a conflict, the US will lose because you can't win a war with hamburgers.

Levitz 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Rather, the US wants its worker coming up with the concept of drones to begin with.

Which is how China gets to make drones to begin with. You don't seem to have any understanding of what a service economy is.

palmotea 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Rather, the US wants its worker coming up with the concept of drones to begin with.

Sure, but that idea is too stupid and arrogant to event consider. China's not going to cede that kind of high-level work forever. They'll learn how to do it, and when that happens what will the US do?

And then, in the conflict, can your "concept makers" get their implementation done by the hamburger assemblers, with their hamburger assembler skills and hamburger assembly equipment?

vkou 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> But we're on track to do it.

The only thing that the US is on track to is getting a taste of what real corruption feels like, enriching Trump's friends, and hollowing out its middle class.

CuriouslyC 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Joke's on them. If a wave of post-trump anti-corruption retribution doesn't come when the Republicans get swept out of power, we're going to have a whole generation of Luigis.

corford 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

40+ years of deliberate policy choices to prioritise growth through finacialisation rather than domestic industrial production

everfrustrated 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The West (with particular emphasis on the USA) got infected with this insane ideology that the best way to restore democracy to China would be to "corrupt" them with capitalism. Hence open them up to international trade, allow joining WTO etc. With prosperity the people would demand democracy.

You can also see this in the German approach to energy trade with Russia.

This toxic idea needs to be put to bed. All it did was feed and enrich foreigners at the expense of locals and create supply chain dependencies that made themselves hostage.

tokioyoyo 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There are lots of reasons, but also, having 1.4B people under the same government that has more-or-less aligned strategic goals help. Like supply chains within Japan, from what I've seen and experienced, are pretty strong. However, the options will always look smaller compared to a gigantic organism across the pond.

smallmancontrov 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The beneficial owners of the US economy sold our industrial manufacturing base to the Communist Party of China because the price was good. China got our hard power and US capital owners got to break the back of the US labor movement. A win-win deal for the ages.

expedition32 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The West only represents a minority on this planet. China alone has 1 billion people.

The last 200 years has been an aberration and it is currently in the process of being corrected.

ljlolel 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The West is easily over a billion people

steve76 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]