> Closing trade to the extent that we're making our own underwear INSTEAD of satellite parts can't really be chocked up as a win.
If you remove the instead part of that (which doesn't make sense as an either-or), it's a big win if your goal is to remove manufacturing, jobs and capital from a strategic superpower competitor like China.
If in-sourcing underwear to the US results in only 1,000 net additional jobs - making a billion pairs of underwear per year - and results in the loss of 20,000 low paid manufacturing jobs, supply chain, infrastructure, tax revenue, etc. in China. That is a win, if your goal is to make China slightly weaker. If the US nets out to even and China loses, it's a win for the US - if you view China as a superpower competitor for the next century (which nearly everyone in DC does today).
If the US could use increased automation to pull back every bit of outsourced manufacturing, even in a fictional zero net gain scenario (ie no net job gains, no net tax benefit, no net capital retention benefit, etc), it makes the US more powerful versus the rest of the world, as the rest of the world loses trillions of dollars in outsourced manufacturing value (ie an enormous injection of capital to be used to build out their nations, as in China or presently as is happening in Vietnam). If you're a politician in DC you would view that as a useful increase in US hegemony.
Apparel in-sourcing, as one example, has already begun globally. It's only going to get more aggressive over the coming decades. Developed nations will pull back various pieces of their manufacturing chains, as substantial automation gains make it reasonable to do so. When you combine those gains with the upside of geographic location - being close to your customers, eg for rapid trend adjustment purposes in apparel - the in-sourcing advantage is strong.
If you remove the instead part of that (which doesn't make sense as an either-or), it's a big win if your goal is to remove manufacturing, jobs and capital from a strategic superpower competitor like China.
If in-sourcing underwear to the US results in only 1,000 net additional jobs - making a billion pairs of underwear per year - and results in the loss of 20,000 low paid manufacturing jobs, supply chain, infrastructure, tax revenue, etc. in China. That is a win, if your goal is to make China slightly weaker. If the US nets out to even and China loses, it's a win for the US - if you view China as a superpower competitor for the next century (which nearly everyone in DC does today).
If the US could use increased automation to pull back every bit of outsourced manufacturing, even in a fictional zero net gain scenario (ie no net job gains, no net tax benefit, no net capital retention benefit, etc), it makes the US more powerful versus the rest of the world, as the rest of the world loses trillions of dollars in outsourced manufacturing value (ie an enormous injection of capital to be used to build out their nations, as in China or presently as is happening in Vietnam). If you're a politician in DC you would view that as a useful increase in US hegemony.
Apparel in-sourcing, as one example, has already begun globally. It's only going to get more aggressive over the coming decades. Developed nations will pull back various pieces of their manufacturing chains, as substantial automation gains make it reasonable to do so. When you combine those gains with the upside of geographic location - being close to your customers, eg for rapid trend adjustment purposes in apparel - the in-sourcing advantage is strong.