This infrastructure doesn't have to be cutting edge. Even 90s-era tech should be enough to cover a country's basic needs in case of a global collapse or shortage.
It's insane for humanity to continue putting their eggs in one or two baskets.
My argument is that semiconductor manufacturing must also be added to that list. A natural disaster or a war between two countries shouldn't lead to wide-spread famine or throw humanity back into the dark ages.
Supply chains and globalization should be very much rethought in this century.
Calling it slave labour is a great sound bite but glosses over the wide variety in working conditions "overseas", and the fact that trade has vastly improved conditions in many such "overseas" countries.
I have broadly the opposite view about supply chains and globalisation; the inter-reliance of countries and the trade in labour/goods/services leads to diplomacy, negotiation, communication, better understanding and ultimately a safer, better world. History has demonstrated this consistently if you take a long view.
The direction of "make everything in your own country, rely on no other country for anything" is the opposite to all of the above: less need for diplomacy, less leverage in negotiation, less communication, less understanding. That's a sad direction for the world to move in.
Is there any point at which we say "it is wrong to remove wealth from my country, put a fraction of it into working conditions unthinkable in my country, and let the owners of the means of production pocket the rest"? Shouldn't we mandate US-like living conditions and safety regulations if we are going to ethically export labor?
To make that mandate at the beginning is simply to decide not to export labour, since the trade can't happen if you apply those conditions from the outset. That's worse for everybody: your t-shirt costs more, and the worker in Cambodia or Bangladesh goes back to subsistence farming.
The present system of international trade has delivered a marked improvement in living conditions for labour-exporting countries. It's always worthwhile to talk about how to make further improvement happen faster, but mandates aren't the solution — to pretend economic realities don't exist doesn't make them go away.
Why don't you? Why is it unethical to save a penny for a stockholder yet it isn't unethical for you to save a penny by buying foreign produced goods? Sure, there are many specific brands unavailable domestically, but you can find some variation of everything you need locally.
Even if there are exceptions to that, I would bet you rarely choose to purchase domestic goods because they're too expensive. Supply chains operate at the maximum possible efficiency to save you as much money as possible. If you're willing to spend more to uphold your ideals, then do it. You already have the option.
It's a fair point to make, but doesn't mean that OP shouldn't be doing their part by buying domestically if they really hate that some products get manufactured in another country. If everyone who complained about this issue decides to only buy domestically the domestic market would be much stronger.
At the "buy all American", I disagree with your point that I could possibly source everything in my house from the United States even if I had a million dollars - and if I could, though it would make me feel better, it doesn't change the macro fact.
Tim Cook famously said that Apple can’t move manufacturing to the US because the US does not have the industrial engineers needed to make and run those factories.
Ever see American Made on Netflix? Chinese industrial capacity, processes and standards are on some different level of refinement.
The majority of the jobs you call slavery are indeed in horrible conditions, but still better paying than substistence farming, thus being one of the ways people can break the circle of poverty.
Exploitation needs to be weighed and reigned in, but rather than taking industry back home, it would be better to just make sure that workers in poor countries are also paid fair wages.
Exporting materials (steel), industrial capacity (famously, container ships), labor (Saudi Arabian oilfield workers and nurses in Germany among others), and mercenaries (Vietnam War).
Wages from which were taken by the government and invested (via national monopolies such as Samsung and Hyundai) into more infrastructure growth. Which slowly led to the Korea of today. Add in a dash of democratization and you get the softpower exporting, shipbuilding, chip fabbing regional power today.
It’s an interesting case study into I guess so-called “benevolent dictatorships” that managed to democratize itself (very very violently by the way), and then kept its nationalistic spirit going to weather through an IMF Credit Crisis to become what it is today.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabricat...
Governments can subsidize their use in local industries or even build the infrastructure themselves doing what many governments already do with power, telecommunications, and transport.
The G7 and G20 aren’t an exclusive club for nothing. There are real things behind GDP.
If that makes goods too expensive for the population (it won't) they couldn't afford them anyways. They were simply paying for the goods by mortgaging their future.
If there is no demand then yes, absolutely. It's normal for countries (inc. the US) to run and subsidize their infrastructure at a loss if it is critical to their national security.
The US military has a large pool of mechanics and technicians they constantly train who then go on to private sector. Building things, and building things right, take a level of physical dexterity and mechanical intelligence that must be honed.
Ever see a machinist run a hand over a milled surface, call it out of tolerance by 0.005” and then the calipers confirm? You can’t learn that from a book that shit is straight just 25 years of looking and touching surfaces that smooth. Drilling straight holes into metal frames that bend and give is an art.
You can’t let that die. So the military funds shops everywhere to build widgets for the war machine to keep people employed and those skills alive in the event that when we do need tens of thousands of them at once, there are seasoned veterans ready to lead the way. And in the mean time, they make $150k a year running a small machine shop in Michigan subcontracting for Northrup or Lockheed or something.
Why not do it for just about every critical part of life? Why only do it for the "being ready to kill adversaries" subset?
If you work for the IRS or the USPS, don’t you get guaranteed work, public health insurance and a pension after some number of decades of service?
More broadly I think about all teachers and first responders.
Mandatory trade relationsips and closely interconnected supply chains are an important factor in preventing larger wars.
The reality slowly dawning on us is that if goods cross borders, soliders don't have to.
The cold war maybe felt cold on the other side of the globe. Was very much hot here. My country is barely older than peace is.
So let's say that we have a democracy by that definition, for example Myanmar — a big garment exporter — in 2020 or so. The 2020 elections were described by international organisations as "free and fair".
Should the result of the coup d'état that happened shortly after those elections be that not only do the garment workers lose their right to vote in future free and fair elections, but they also lose their jobs when the factories are closed due to foreign countries introducing their "don't trade with non-democracies" policy? Do we think that would improve or worsen the situation?
It's not an easy choice when human lives hang in the balance. My view is that allowing authoritarians to entrench themselves for years, generations, possibly centuries is by far worse. We know that democracy is a fragile state of affairs. It rarely occurs without a violent overthrow of the elite and often doesn't last very long. Despotism, on the other hand, is common and long lasting because it is unabashed about cowing people through violence, torture, murder, blackmail, and all the other evils you can imagine. If we want to keep our freedom we must continually resist all attempts to take it.
Even sanctions generally apply only to specific individuals and groups, rather than entire economies. Unfortunately, risk-averse financial institituions generally treat them in practice as applying to entire economies, since it can be virtually impossible otherwise to ensure you are not dealing with a sanctioned individual/group.
Kinda funny when you consider we literally put all our eggs in exactly two baskets, both on males and females.