[cmrdporcupine]

No, US picked services, financials, defense, and energy

China picked manufacturing, infrastructure, consumable exports

All the compromises here were pointed out by critics on the left many decades ago. Letting capital flee to where labour was cheapest eviscerated the entire US and Canadian northeast/midwest manufacturing sector and was policy driven from the right.

That and we decided that only the private sector should be responsible for building infrastructure and housing, and then wondered why the cost of building either skyrocketed in cost...

And yet now it's the (far) right freaking out and trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

[dmix]

That idea that you could have a) stopped globalism as lots of new giant markets opened up after the 1970s and b) be better off paying 2x for everything by banning everything foreign is just a fantasy. It’s just nostalgia fueled radical politics that both the far left and right latch on to.

The other part of the story that gets ignore is the administrative state exploding in the US/Canada post 1970s, where making new industry and development became very difficult making other countries more attractive while the cost of living exploded.

So instead of becoming competitive all we’re left with is these ideas of the government forcing domestic industry by using national security as an excuse to justify the backwards economics of it all.

[mghackerlady]

the US picked those because it was cheaper to move the others to china. It again shows that capitalism will inevitably die without colonialism

[cmrdporcupine]

Yeah I think you added that before I edited my comment to say the same :-)