You're acting like laws are the only decisions that matter. Laws constrain business decisions, sure, but they don't dictate them. In some cases, they may constrain them enough to effectively dictate them (like the Buy American Act) but those are relatively rare.
>Any company that takes on much higher costs than its competitors without getting some benefit in return will not be able to stay in business for long.
This gets to my earlier point. Voting at the ballot and voting with your wallet are both ways to evaluate what people value. Both individual consumers and businesses vote with their wallets. Have you never paid more for something because it better aligns with your value system? Or do you strictly make purchases solely on the input of price? I see many people on HN who refuse to buy Amazon Basic items precisely for this reason, even though they are often the cheapest option.
As I previously said, American consumers largely value cheap shit. Companies largely value profits. Both of these, taken to an extreme, can come at the expense of other things like economic stability or strategic independence. The difference is, I hold all three (individuals, companies, and governments) accountable for those choices. It just seems weird to me that so many people are willing to hold a subset of them to task while giving the other subset a free pass.
>Any company that takes on much higher costs than its competitors without getting some benefit in return will not be able to stay in business for long.
Let me reframe this. If I instead said, "Any politician who doesn't take millions of dollars from lobbyists will not be able to stay in office for long", would that make accepting of that money somehow justified in your mind? For most people the answer is no. The difference is we've been hoodwinked into thinking morally ambiguous or outright immoral behavior is somehow ok in one sphere while acknowledging a moral burden elsewhere.
I'm not arguing that we can simply start making things in America on the drop of a dime. Anyone who has been involved in manufacturing knows that there is a lot of manufacturing expertise that has left and can only be done (at the current time, at least) overseas. What I'm poking at is that this is the logical progression of offshoring manufacturing over the last half-century. That strategy is due in part to corporate influence on laws, as well as the government who put those laws in place, as well as the constituents who put those civil servants in place. I'm old enough to remember Ross Perot's quip about the "giant sucking sound" from jobs (and expertise) being sucked out of the country and to witness firsthand the decline of the rust-belt. To act like corporations are blameless in the undermining of local manufacturing is naïve IMO.