←back to thread

America underestimates the difficulty of bringing manufacturing back

(www.molsonhart.com)
842 points putzdown | 10 comments | 15 Apr 25 13:50 UTC | HN request time: 0.981s | source | bottom
Show context
PaulKeeble ◴[15 Apr 25 14:06 UTC] No.43692896[source]▶
Its the integration and overall combined effect of the entire industrial pipeline that makes China so incredible. It processes all the raw materials and the recycling/reuse of off cuts through every possible way to turn those raw materials into components and then into goods with very little need for import from other countries. Its the complete system for a huge variety of goods.

To compete with that the entire pipeline from raw materials through components and final product needs to be reproduced and its taken China 40+ years to build up to this capacity and capability.

I think its something more countries should consider and do for certain pipelines but we are in a world with vast international trade and the winner(cheapest) takes most of the trade so whatever it is needs to be worth while within country.

replies(5): >>43693027 #>>43693075 #>>43693188 #>>43693237 #>>43694514 #
1. digianarchist ◴[15 Apr 25 14:14 UTC] No.43693027[source]▶
Absolutely. Canada for example should not be shipping lumber and oil to the United States for further refinement. It should be processed domestically.
replies(2): >>43693143 #>>43693356 #
2. knowaveragejoe ◴[15 Apr 25 14:20 UTC] No.43693143[source]▶
Why would that be better? Comparative advantage is real.
replies(1): >>43693304 #
3. digianarchist ◴[15 Apr 25 14:31 UTC] No.43693304[source]▶
1. Jobs.

2. Profits.

3. Refined products can be exported to countries that don't have refinement capabilities. Not just the US and China. This gives Canada better trade leverage.

4. Security. A big one that's emerged in the last few weeks.

I don't see either Poilievre or Carney talking about this which is disappointing but not unexpected.

replies(1): >>43708435 #
4. franktankbank ◴[15 Apr 25 14:35 UTC] No.43693356[source]▶
Canada and the US are long time allies and should be able to benefit from eachother without much hesitation. China is an adversary, big difference in posture.
replies(2): >>43693370 #>>43693442 #
5. krapp ◴[15 Apr 25 14:36 UTC] No.43693370[source]▶
Canada and the US are no longer allies.
replies(2): >>43694315 #>>43736885 #
6. digianarchist ◴[15 Apr 25 14:41 UTC] No.43693442[source]▶
Security allies? Sure. Economic allies? I don't think that has been the case for a long time. Even before Trump's second term.

Canada and the US have been to court multiple times over NAFTA violations (sometimes Canada is at fault admittedly).

https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-com...

7. ben_w ◴[15 Apr 25 15:34 UTC] No.43694315{3}[source]▶
Unfortunately it's impossible to tell if they are de facto allies, because on the one hand they very much still are de jure still allies, and on the other all the stuff Trump is saying and doing.
8. snapcaster ◴[16 Apr 25 17:56 UTC] No.43708435{3}[source]▶
Do you not believe in the theory of competitive advantage? The tradeoff is higher prices, do you think that doesn't matter?
replies(1): >>43723958 #
9. digianarchist ◴[18 Apr 25 01:14 UTC] No.43723958{4}[source]▶
What is the competitive advantage here? That refinement exists in the United States and not Canada? That was a political choice made by Canadian politicians.
10. Der_Einzige ◴[19 Apr 25 15:03 UTC] No.43736885{3}[source]▶
It’s either allies or you get invaded by us. You have no nukes. This isn’t the Micheal Moore fantasy of “Canadian bacon” where it’s all some funny post 90s joke: Trump hates Canadians and will use military force to annex them if he perceives that it will go well.

I fully, 100% expect this to happen, at least to Greenland and a real chance of this happening to Canada.