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

>The second thing we see is that Asian manufacturing in Asia produces US jobs. You go to Footlocker to buy a pair of $100 shoes because you can afford them. This creates jobs for the Footlocker employees, Nike designers, marketing teams, and other US people throughout this chain.

In all fairness, most of those jobs would still exist if manufacturing was brought onshore. The fact that they were manufactured in Asia makes no difference here, except for perhaps the longshoremen that was included in "other US people."

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?

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?

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.