SouthFresh

Thank you. For the rest of time I will be referring to squash as squish.

I feel like the details are important. What a country considered necessary for national security is a moving target that changes with technology.

Just as an example, 1930’s U.S. didn’t have any need for national security regarding the transistor or integrated circuit fab materials and manufacturing. That certainly is on the list now. While the U.S. has resources domestically and manufacturing facilities for this, the resources are finite.

The U.S. still has the Guano Islands Act available to “enforce” in the case that a suitable island supply was found AND desired. This was considered such a point of national security that the government legalized imperialism for bird shit.

If a specific resource becomes nationalized in the way you are suggesting, it seems to me that similar acts for rare earth metals might appear and still lead to imperialism.

I asked for specifics because I am unaware of any country that can satisfy all of its security and/or survival needs from only domestic sources. If the necessary resource is not found in enough abundance domestically, what choice is left under your proposal, other than to nationalize another country’s resources through imperialism?

What are the industries you're concerned about? I'm unclear on how a country would actually accomplish your goals without becoming imperialist. No country has every resource it needs in the abundance it needs.

I think you missed where we’re in agreement about it being more profitable outside of the country. I was only suggesting that a better way to combat that would be incentives that are designed to maintain a status where the process of manufacturing remains profitable within the U.S.

I don’t disagree with that, but it assumes the incentives are intended to expire. If the aim is to bring manufacturing back to the U.S., then one has to ensure manufacturing in the U.S. is profitable.

Tariffs do nothing for that.

Tariffs aren't the way either.

The problem with incentives isn't that they "can't" work, it's that they need to be at a level that makes using foreign manufacturing unattractive.

Manufacturing is costly in the United States because enforced minimum wages, enforced safety protocols (enshrined in the blood of lost workers), and regulations brought about as a reaction to violations of those safety protocols by management of the local companies have necessarily increased the cost of manufacturing locally.

In a totally free market, the owners of the businesses would be "free" to abuse their workers how they see fit. Thankfully, most of the people in the U.S. have recognized that safety of workers is an important factor. The ability to enforce safety is likewise necessary when some company managers/executives have shown disdain for safety routinely.

The infrastructure required to implement the wages and safety has increased the cost to the companies in question. No business will last very long if increased costs aren't passed on to their customers in some way. This leads to manufacturers having to face the choice of increasing the passed on cost of working within the U.S.'s regulations and requirements, or moving their manufacturing process to countries with lower standards of wages and regulation. Most companies have chosen the latter. If the purpose of owning and running a business is to increase the profit it makes, then additional costs to the business are necessarily not absorbed by the company and allowed to eat into profit

A tariff is likewise only seen as a regulation for which the cost will be passed on to the consumer by increasing the retail price of a product, and is typically seen as a regressive action.

If one wants to increase manufacturing in the U.S., one has to provide incentives for manufacturers to do so. margin, they are simply built into the final price of the service/product provided by the business. These incentives could take many forms, from tax breaks in some ways, to more favorable interest rates for specific loans (given criteria relevant to the specific market).

Because they get more data from it.

Yay, now the world’s worst profiling service can show the same completely irrelevant add twice!

If you’re a business and using Google to serve targeted ads, think twice. Their targeting is absolutely horse-shit mumbojumbo. They’re wasting your money, their money, and my time by consistently serving the least-relevant, no-fucking-chance-I’d-click-on-that ads.

You’d be better off paying local pigeons for investing advice.

Ahem....

chown [OWNER] /usr/lib

I was beaten by InEnduringGrowStrong, whomst's is better.

"Sternlink"