America's advanced manufacturing problem and how to fix it

Objectively, at present he's stoking a fire comprised of $44 billion dollars, committing anti trust crimes, and endangering a besieged foreign nation.

Judge him by his actions, not by what his blowhards say about him.

A piece like this is not a self contained textbook. It's a hot topic with 100 years of history near the centre of political and economic discourse. Contentious claims are inevitable.

The reverse claim also gets made, and whether or not the claim is "supported," it's never sufficiently supported. The reality is that there's a whole debate with vountermoves behind either claim.

One side looks at employment, tonnage, plant construction, anecdote and common sense. The other looks at accounting.

Accounting says that "manufacturing" has increased. Skeptics consider this an accounting fiction. The reality is that "manufacturing" in 2023 is not quantifiable in the way that it was in 1923. Accounting semantics are abstract and past a point turn into a matter of accountants' naming convention.

A 1923 ford factory represented most of the "manufacturing" represented by the cars that they produced. As the industry splits into OEMs, T1s, T2s, toolers and whatnot^ we move into more abstract definitions. Has one of Ford's industrial engineering teams ceased to be "manufacturing," because they now design processes for a Mexican subsidiary? How about the US-based management/overherheads for the subsidiary? Irl, accountants can represent these any way that the tax man, board or market prefers. The same physical change can represent 20% or 5% decrease in manufacturing.

There's just a point where quantifications fail, and can't be used to decide such debates conclusively.

Where we're at now, imo, requires us to keep purpose in mind, and forget about a single, neutral quantification. If you're quantifying manufacturing for maximum military potential, employment or resilience to trade problems... You probably need different definitions/quantifications of "manufacturing."

^These specific conventions were created to structure trade deals and regulate tarrifs.

Take this for example: >China dominates the production of full electric vehicles

And put it in context with the recent revelations of hectares of abandoned new EVs rotting in many locations in China. Why? The financial policy gave incentives to making more EVs, some enterprising individuals managed to manufacture very low quality cars while funding it with "shared car startup model". Then when these car sharing schemes went bankrupt (because many cars wouldn't complete a single trip without malfunction) they had enormous profits regardless. How? The cost of manufacturing was funded by investors in these startups(a third party, or a client from the manufacturer's point of view). After they went bankrupt there would be no warranty claims etc. While the per car gov subsidy was pure profit.

I cannot understand why anyone in the West would believe any economic statistic or number coming out of China. The country is known for fudging numbers at all levels. The corruption is endemic to the point one actually pays for government positions with cash (as a bribe to higher ups) and considers it an investment to recoup in own bribes in future.

It's Soviet Union all over again. Back then The West to the last moment had many prominent authors praising Soviet advancements in many fields until the very end and the collapse that was a complete surprise to many.

I hear you. But I am not worried about whatever economic modellers say, or what prominent authors write. What I am worried is when huge companies, predominantly preceived as western ones, spread their arms and swear there is no way they can make their gizmos in the USA.

Look at Apple for example, most valuable company on the whole world and 44-47% of their production sites is in china. Did we had anything like that in the Soviet block?