[chii]

> immense supply chain options.

so this begs the question - why isn't the west's own supply chain options as immense? My unresearched answer is that the gov't policies of the west doesn't induce it, while china's gov't does (which includes targeted subsidies, tax incentives and state driven finances).

The "hidden" cost is that the workers in this supply chain isn't as well paid and isn't as powerful as the workers from the west (there's no unions in china for example).

[solid_fuel]

> why isn't the west's own supply chain options as immense?

They used to be. Since roughly the 80's, policymakers have decided it is better for the shareholders to outsource most of that industry overseas to China and India and etc, where the labor is cheaper.

Note that workers and especially union members actually have every incentive to keep that production domestic, but shareholders and CEOs profit when they can cut labor costs and the typical Western consumer values cheap products more than the health of domestic industry.

Western industries have been supported by subsidies, tax incentives, bailouts, low interest rates, and a dozen other things from the gov't but the same policies reward outsourcing and financial engineering more than actual production capacity.

[mullingitover]

> why isn't the west's own supply chain options as immense?

The US explicitly chose to be a service economy. China explicitly chose to be a mercantile economy.

The US can absolutely switch paths, it will just take a long time and will require pushing millions into poverty. But we're on track to do it.

[palmotea]

> The US explicitly chose to be a service economy. China explicitly chose to be a mercantile economy.

In other words: the US wants its workers assembling hamburgers, China wants its workers assembling drones.

And when there's a conflict, the US will lose because you can't win a war with hamburgers.

[Levitz]

Rather, the US wants its worker coming up with the concept of drones to begin with.

Which is how China gets to make drones to begin with. You don't seem to have any understanding of what a service economy is.

[palmotea]

> Rather, the US wants its worker coming up with the concept of drones to begin with.

Sure, but that idea is too stupid and arrogant to event consider. China's not going to cede that kind of high-level work forever. They'll learn how to do it, and when that happens what will the US do?

And then, in the conflict, can your "concept makers" get their implementation done by the hamburger assemblers, with their hamburger assembler skills and hamburger assembly equipment?

[mullingitover]

> They'll learn how to do it, and when that happens what will the US do?

Continue coming up with even more advanced ideas. This is like the Winklevoss Twins getting mad at Zuckerberg for 'stealing their idea', and the dean of Harvard lecturing them about how they're Men of Harvard and as such they'll simply come up with another idea, because that's what Men of Harvard do. They don't just one and done with one good idea.

The US built the world's most advanced idea factory, but the people who hate smart people got into power and now they're stripping the copper out of the walls.

> And then, in the conflict

There won't be a hot conflict between nuclear powers. Or there will, and whoever can make the most drones will be irrelevant in the first 24 hours.

[Levitz]

>Sure, but that idea is too stupid and arrogant to event consider. China's not going to cede that kind of high-level work forever.

The "stupid and arrogant" idea has worked for decades and the only real problem with it is espionage. Stealing someone else's labor is an enormous amount of China's progress, and a good thing to remember when musing about a country's future.

[palmotea]

> The "stupid and arrogant" idea has worked for decades and the only real problem with it is espionage.

No, the stupid and arrogant idea is the one that the Chinese will be content to occupy the subordinate position forever, taking direction from Westerners and doing only the grunt work the Westerners often think is beneath them.

It's also stupid and arrogant to think the Chinese are not capable of innovation on their own. The espionage was a tactic to catch up more quickly, and now that they've done that, Chinese are innovating on their own now and have better technology in many areas. But that's not the only thing going on: Western countries are literally going over to China, teaching them what they'll need to know to out-compete them in the future.

[myrmidon]

"Explicitly chose" is a strong word.

US and China are on completely different stages of industrialization: The US had its massive boom of manufacturing almost a century ago, enriching its population massively. Those rich citizens make the same manufacturing uncompetitive today, because no one is going to work in a factory for $20k/year (median wage in urban China), when he can work for other "rich" people for more than twice as much.

Switching paths is not feasible for the US in the same way that it is not gonna be feasible for China to hold on to all its industry as wages rise: You can't compete globally at "poor people wages" while being "rich", as simple as that.

[vkou]

> But we're on track to do it.

The only thing that the US is on track to is getting a taste of what real corruption feels like, enriching Trump's friends, and hollowing out its middle class.

[CuriouslyC]

Joke's on them. If a wave of post-trump anti-corruption retribution doesn't come when the Republicans get swept out of power, we're going to have a whole generation of Luigis.

[tokioyoyo]

There are lots of reasons, but also, having 1.4B people under the same government that has more-or-less aligned strategic goals help. Like supply chains within Japan, from what I've seen and experienced, are pretty strong. However, the options will always look smaller compared to a gigantic organism across the pond.

[corford]

40+ years of deliberate policy choices to prioritise growth through finacialisation rather than domestic industrial production

[everfrustrated]

The West (with particular emphasis on the USA) got infected with this insane ideology that the best way to restore democracy to China would be to "corrupt" them with capitalism. Hence open them up to international trade, allow joining WTO etc. With prosperity the people would demand democracy.

You can also see this in the German approach to energy trade with Russia.

This toxic idea needs to be put to bed. All it did was feed and enrich foreigners at the expense of locals and create supply chain dependencies that made themselves hostage.

[Tangurena2]

> why isn't the west's own supply chain options as immense?

Because each city in China has become specialized. You want to have someone make hairdryers for your company to sell? Then go to Cixi. There are dozens of small suppliers making the parts that go into hair dryers. There are dozens of companies making small appliances (just like hairdryers) They're all "just down the street" from each other. This means that the knowledge and infrastructure and workers are all in one place. You don't have to ship a truckload of heater elements across the country to some factory that some CEO decided should be built in the lowest cost real estate. The same reason that all of the America IC manufacturers got started in Silicon Valley.

This sort of specialization/concentration used to happen in the US. That's why NYC had a "garment district" where you could get clothing made from design to ready-to-sell. Los Angeles used to be one of the major hubs for making aircraft because of the large number of small companies making stuff that the aerospace companies assemble into aircraft. Jacobs wrote about this sort of thing in Cities And The Wealth of Nations about how the Shah of Iran wanted a helicopter factory in Iran. It was a flop because none of the seats are made across town, they're made in America, like the blades or engine or windscreen or avionics. All the Shah got for his dream was an assembly plant. There was no transfer of technology so that the parts could be made in Iran.

Before shipping containers were invented, shipping goods was expensive enough that factories making things tended to be located close to their suppliers. That was why Detroit became a center of car manufacturing. Shipping containers made it cheaper to transport some item across an ocean than it costs to drive it across the city.

[smallmancontrov]

The beneficial owners of the US economy sold our industrial manufacturing base to the Communist Party of China because the price was good. China got our hard power and US capital owners got to break the back of the US labor movement. A win-win deal for the ages.

[expedition32]

The West only represents a minority on this planet. China alone has 1 billion people.

The last 200 years has been an aberration and it is currently in the process of being corrected.

[ljlolel]

The West is easily over a billion people