• Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    2 days ago

    You need to make the components to the US too dumbass otherwise you’re just assembling the product in the United States, not actually making it.

    But making those components in the US is not profitable, because there are no companies making things in the US that need those components, certainly not on the scale that needs factories for it.

    What you have is a classic chicken or the egg situation. It’s not profitable to make the components in the US without the large scale computer end-products being made and it’s also not profitable to build the end-products in the US without the components being manufactured there already.

    I touched on this when Germany’s industries disappeared during the european energy crisis caused by Nordstream and Ukraine. The industries physically can’t come back on market forces alone. They weren’t formed with market forces alone in the first place and they had different conditions that led to their formation at the time anyway.

    Frankly if I were a capitalist ghoul the only way that makes sense to me to get any of this to happen in a reasonable timescale would be to start national companies for it, then to privatise them later.

    • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Why have national companies when you can subsidize whoever gives you a better cut to pretend they’ll start doing it.

      My subsidized manufacturing company bankrupted, I’m gonna need a bailout

      • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yeah that’s exactly the problem with the subsidy route without any other part of the chain existing. They’re incentivised to take you for a ride for as long as possible.

        You need to create the competition conditions before subsidy works.