Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author’s point is that the lower cost of goods coming from Asia results in increased demand, which then generates more jobs in the post-manufacturing part of the chain.
That completely discounts the strategic value of self-sufficiency. I mean, why not outsource ALL manufacturing and agriculture if someone else can do it cheaper? Surely that wouldn't come back to bite us, right?
I see the argument for things of military significance. The common one is electronic components. But PCBs manufacturing is easy to spinup quickly. Which leave the critical components like IC where the ones we'd actually need are still exclusively overseas. The TSMC factory being built wont produce the newest generation chips.
Same for agriculture, if we're totally self sufficient, what happens when a blight takes out a staple crop or two? You can't just spin up food production or global food trade the way you can with manufacturing.
Meanwhile, having robust global trade is just a less lethal version of MAD, here being mutually assured economic destruction. It's much harder for other nations to turn on you when you both depend on each other for comfort, convience, or survival. Look at how the US is being seen by the international community. The reputation we had as a strong ally and worthwhile partner has been badly damaged. Why would other nations want to help us now? How are we stronger alone, instead of having their eager support?
There are two people, one grows all his own food, and makes all of the tools he needs. He doesn't need anybody. The other works with his neighbors, they share food, he kinda knows how to sharpen an ax, but he uses the ones made by the guy down the street, who's basically a professional blacksmith, even though he introduces himself as a gardener.
which one of those guys appears stronger? Who's more likely to survive something bad happening? who do you think is more likely to win in a fight? (yes their neighbors will come to help) which one would you rather be?