How much do you think it costs to make a pair of Nike shoes in Asia?

The author’s point is that the lower cost of goods coming from Asia results in increased demand, which then generates more jobs in the post-manufacturing part of the chain.

That completely discounts the strategic value of self-sufficiency. I mean, why not outsource ALL manufacturing and agriculture if someone else can do it cheaper? Surely that wouldn't come back to bite us, right?

Yes, the goal is for everyone to be doing the thing they can do most cheaply and then trading with everyone else. Karl Marx and Ludwig von Mises would agree on this point. The idea that the Westphalian state should get in the middle of this is the aberation. The only reason national security is a consideration is because of the nations. I don't care if my shoes are made in Asia, though I suspect they wouldn't be if we paid Asian shoemakers an honest, globally-clearing wage.

Self-sufficiency is irrelevant to the discussion above. If prices go up, Americans can buy less, and the number of non-manufacturing jobs at these companies will go down.

Are cheap sneakers a strategic asset now?

Self sufficiency is just not a credible argument here.

This is about consumer footwear, not agriculture (nor all of manufacturing).

The US (and most other nations that can afford to) is perfectly used to throwing ~$20 billion at the sector to keep local agriculture operational.

We did not do this for literally every industry in the past because we had (and have) neither the idle workforce to do this, nor does the local population want to do the work (even for slightly uncompetitive wages), nor do consumers want to pay for the difference.

My personal prediction is that people will realize this pretty soon with the consequences of the Trump tariffs manifesting and the whole thing will be rolled back and scaled down, with pretty much nothing to show for it.

Domestic production that is perceived to benefit national sovereignty is protected.

See: farming, energy, and defense spending/subsidies.

There is no point in history where any nation, anywhere, has needed to be self-sufficient in the production of Nike Air Maxes.

That being said, my sneakers, New Balance 990v6s, were made in the US-- probably Maine. They're $200.

The shoes I typically wear for work, Red Wing Iron Rangers or Work Chukkas, were made in the US-- probably Minnesota. They're $350 and $290 respectively.

I don't know if increased volume will decrease the prices by much, they're only higher than premium imports by a little bit.

There is domestic production already here.

We don't have the labor pool for self-sufficiency unless we want to drastically scale back how we live.

Explain the strategic value like I'm 5? I see people reference this idea all the time, but I'm unconvinced it's actually valuable enough to be worth it given all the other downsides. I don't actually believe it's a positive value proposition.

I see the argument for things of military significance. The common one is electronic components. But PCBs manufacturing is easy to spinup quickly. Which leave the critical components like IC where the ones we'd actually need are still exclusively overseas. The TSMC factory being built wont produce the newest generation chips.

Same for agriculture, if we're totally self sufficient, what happens when a blight takes out a staple crop or two? You can't just spin up food production or global food trade the way you can with manufacturing.

Meanwhile, having robust global trade is just a less lethal version of MAD, here being mutually assured economic destruction. It's much harder for other nations to turn on you when you both depend on each other for comfort, convience, or survival. Look at how the US is being seen by the international community. The reputation we had as a strong ally and worthwhile partner has been badly damaged. Why would other nations want to help us now? How are we stronger alone, instead of having their eager support?

There are two people, one grows all his own food, and makes all of the tools he needs. He doesn't need anybody. The other works with his neighbors, they share food, he kinda knows how to sharpen an ax, but he uses the ones made by the guy down the street, who's basically a professional blacksmith, even though he introduces himself as a gardener.

which one of those guys appears stronger? Who's more likely to survive something bad happening? who do you think is more likely to win in a fight? (yes their neighbors will come to help) which one would you rather be?

Learning piano makes me better at music. Learning the violin is then easier.

I know you're asking "why not outsource ALL manufacturing and agriculture if someone else can do it cheaper" in jest, or as a rhetorical device, but basically every single economist on earth will say "Yes, we should do that, that's a good thing"

> I don't know if increased volume will decrease the prices by much, they're only higher than premium imports by a little bit.

I don't think its reasonable to expect lower prices for domestic production at all, because the demand for domestic products is only going up (from people that used to buy Vietnamese Nikes).

Personally I think the whole tariff experiment is predictably going to fail, because "increased self sufficiency" does not buy you anything, and at some point people are just gonna push back politically if the cost increases get too bad.

Imagine if China decided to invade Taiwan like they've been threatening to do for a while. They would instantly cut off all exports to the US, because that's the smart thing to do. They would probably blockade Japan and other countries as well to keep them from exporting to the US, because that's the smart thing to do. Now since our supply chains were greatly disrupted (remember COVID?) we can only go to war with the equipment we have and will struggle to produce any more equipment in a short period of time. No more uniforms, no more tanks, no more drones, no more missiles, no more artillery shells, no more medicine, etc, because all the materials for those things are largely sourced from Asia, which would now under a blockade.

I see your point. I suppose a counterpoint is now shoes won't be so disposable and professions for cobblers and the like will be in higher demand.

I've had it explained to me that now that manufacturers won't sell to China because of retaliatory tariffs, they're more product to sell domestically which would push down prices. Less demand due to tariffs from China = lower prices.

Well needless to say all this has been realized about 2000 years ago and there are legions of smart people ensuring that it isn't a problem. Heck I used to ride the light rail in Sunnyvale past an old fab that had notices on the doors saying it was owned by the US Navy.

The shoes aren't even needed. Growing up in Scotland (not poor) in the 1970s I had one pair of shoes. When they wore out my mother would buy me a new pair. Today in the US I have so many pairs of shoes I don't really have space to store them and sometimes end up buying a new pair of shows I already own because I can't keep track of what's in the closet.

Btw the one thing that will be left to show is a wider realization that it's a bad idea to elect a crazy person.

dborehamsays "Btw the one thing that will be left to show is a wider realization that it's a bad idea to elect a crazy person."

Regret to inform that all of them are crazy.

Maybe there are some products that this argument works for, but certainly not footwear I'm sure.

The US exports ~1 billion worth of shoes per year, and imports ~25 billion (mainly from Vietnam and China), according to https://www.usitc.gov/research_and_analysis/tradeshifts/2023...

I also think the argument is bad in general, because more/similar exports than imports would only really hold for the countries least affected by the new tariffs, anyway.

>Regret to inform that all of them are crazy.

I'm sure it's comforting to assume that all politicians are equally corrupt and equally insane and so your vote doesn't actually matter one way or the other but Kamala Harris wouldn't be acting like this, nor would Biden. Hell, not even other Republicans.

I think the point being made is that under Trump's plan (repatriate production) China is MORE likely to invade Taiwan than before. Under the current situation China is LESS likely to invade Taiwan BECAUSE they rely on selling stuff to the USA. Once that reliance is gone, there are less negative consequences for China if they choose to invade Taiwan.

I thought those smart people were the ones saying our military supply chain is dependent on China.

Is that better? We need at least one cobbler sure, but if shoes are so scarce that we need to repair them like some communist country, are we better off?

> Imagine if China decided to invade Taiwan like they've been threatening to do for a while. They would instantly cut off all exports to the US, because that's the smart thing to do.

I think what you're getting at is that China would have more leverage over the US if they attacked (attempted to invade) Taiwan, which they could use to make it more difficult for the US to protect Taiwan.

In that case they could do things like block some or all exports to the US until we, say, stopped escorting cargo ships in and out of Taiwan. But the notion they would "instantly cut off all exports to the US" is nonsense. There's no reason that's somehow a no-brainer post invasion.

> shoes won't be so disposable and professions for cobblers and the like will be in higher demand.

It doesn't necessarily follow that more expensive shoes will be easier to repair. It's more likely that shoes will simultaneously become more expensive for the consumer AND lower quality and therefore even less amenable to repair.

Unless they dramatically change the design and manufacturing of those shoes, they won't be less disposable - just more expensive.

>In that case they could do things like block some or all exports to the US until we, say, stopped escorting cargo ships in and out of Taiwan. But the notion they would "instantly cut off all exports to the US" is nonsense. There's no reason that's somehow a no-brainer post invasion.

You think they would supply their enemy? Biden said he would protect Taiwan pretty emphatically. I assume Trump would be advised of the same.

>Under the current situation China is LESS likely to invade Taiwan BECAUSE they rely on selling stuff to the USA.

I mean the took over Hong Kong already. I think that is wishful thinking.

Are you intentionally being obtuse and thinking I was only talking about sneakers? Obviously I’m talking about trying to keep a wide range of vital goods manufactured within the US. Food, weapons, chip fabs, electrical components, pharmaceuticals, medical supplies, etc. are all things we should try to have robust domestic production of.

Wasn't it that they installed sympathetic politicians, which then led to the UK willingly turning over control (despite the local protests). Calling that a takeover seems misleading to me.

Ahh somewhat willingly, the lease to the land expired. So seemingly no choice was given.

China could also use the US’ dependence on it as leverage to discourage them from intervening in Taiwan. We just saw this play out with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We routinely see Turkey threaten the EU with migrants over the bloc’s reliance on Turkey. We also saw Azerbaijan make a move for Artsakh knowing the EU needed their gas following the invasion of Ukraine. I believe China would prefer being able to extort the US rather than face the possibility of fighting an unbowed US.

> we can only go to war with the equipment we have and will struggle to produce any more equipment in a short period of time. No more uniforms, no more tanks, no more drones, no more missiles, no more artillery shells, no more medicine, etc, because all the materials for those things are largely sourced from Asia, which would now under a blockade.

So if instead all of these weren't sourced from exclusively Asia, and were sourced from many different countries, including domestically, there wouldn't be a problem?

Also, is your assertion really that US military would be at a near term disadvantage, if exports from Asia stopped? That's a wild take.

> They would probably blockade Japan and other countries as well to keep them from exporting to the US, because that's the smart thing to do

You're the first person to try to convince me that it would be smart for China to start a world war with the US and it's allies over Taiwan.

Needless to say, I disagree that it would be smart, I disagree that china would be willing and likely to do it, and disagree they could do it if they actually tried.

They broke the agreement for the handover by about 25 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems

We buy and waste a lot of stuff. Fast fashion is pretty insane. Look in the closets of your friends who are constantly clothes shopping and it's a ton of shit that never gets worn and eventually "donated" (5% makes it to thrift store shelves, but most of it gets burned or sent to Africa .. and then burned).

Reversing the transmission of western consumerism is not an easy change. Few people are willing to pay an extra $50 for a more durable good that lasts. Long term thinking isn't easy for most, and many can't even afford to think that way.

But the tariffs are really a tax, a federal sales tax on the consumer. Biden tried to put in "unrealized gains tax" (which is really Federal property tax). So both presidents are trying to use executive power and double speak to get their people to support new taxes that are ultimately horrible for every American.

Trump Derangement Syndrome runs both directions.

>Look at how the US is being seen by the international community. The reputation we had as a strong ally and worthwhile partner has been badly damaged. Why would other nations want to help us now? How are we stronger alone, instead of having their eager support?

As a Canadian, you just made the argument for strategic value for us. The economic damage caused at the whims of a single person in control of our supposed closest ally is exactly why. The argument for economic "MAD" assumes one country wont be self destructive enough to cut its leg off to spite everyone else and "win" in a way that leaves it worse off.

Right, I think a single point of failure is the problem. Both domestic, or abroad. If you want strength and resilience, you need to have more than a single source for whatever you might need. It's a mistake for both of us to trust a single country to act rationally indefinitely. The problem for me is currently we're both using the same country this time.