That potential end state isn’t possible is the point of my initial comment. It is as infeasible as the weather to control where natural resources are located.
Lets talk plastics. Plastic needs oil. We’re the largest oil producer in the world now. But we still import oil! Why? Because the oil we produce isn’t entirely the right kind for everything we do with it.
An end state where the US is an island cannot exist without massive shifts in production and consumption habits.
Maybe you’re saying though that shift should happen and that end state is good?
> But we still import oil! Why? Because the oil we produce isn’t entirely the right kind for everything we do with it.
Just wanted to elaborate a bit on this. Oil is a fantastic example for "why international trade good?" Oil is weird in that it is a fungible commodity (one barrel here is the same as one barrel there), but at the same time, functionality it's not. Each oil formation has different geology and chemistry. There are light sweet crudes, sour crudes, heavy crudes, and so on [1], and refineries (which are massive capital investments with specialized work forces) are typically tooled out to only process one type or family of types of crude oil products.
One paradox of the USA crude industry is that nearly 70% of U.S. refining capacity runs most efficiently with heavier crude, but our shale crude is lighter. Thus, 90% of crude oil imports into the United States are heavier than U.S.-produced shale crude [2]. So even if we had perfect supply/demand of crude within the USA, we would not be able to run our refineries efficiently without a massive overhaul. They have been built under decades of the assumption of a high degree of free international trade.
And these companies will be loathe to invest in retooling if they believe that the tariffs will just be rolled back in four years.
> That potential end state isn’t possible is the point of my initial comment. It is as infeasible as the weather to control where natural resources are located
You might as well not have commented in the first place if you wanted to throw out my entire premise.
Your premise is the goal of globalism though. You just draw larger lines. If your premise is the lines _must_ contain only the US as it is today then it’s impossible to have enough coffee for the entire country among other thing.
But what are you even asking? Would it be good for Americans if the US could produce every single thing conceivable to fully meet demand domestically? Yes, it would be. But it will not and cannot happen, so it’s not a useful thought exercise.
Would it be amazing if I was 6’7”, super athletic, played in the NBA, and I was also super smart and everyone loved me, especially the ladies? Sure. But I’ve gotta play the cards I’ve been dealt (I think there are some people who love me, at least).
No, it's not a desirable end state. If we produced everything in the US — just assuming we had magic tech to make it possible - we'd have less and be poorer. Americans today live like kings from 200 years ago, in large part due to global trade.
I had said this somewhere else in the thread as well, but domestic production is a pretty bad idea if success metrics revolve around prices, quantity, or some specific quality metrics.
Where it would potentially be a good approach is if the primary goals are relates to self reliance, sustainability, resilience, etc. I don't think many people actually care about that at the national level though, and our economy as-is almost certainly couldn't allow it.
That potential end state isn’t possible is the point of my initial comment. It is as infeasible as the weather to control where natural resources are located.
Lets talk plastics. Plastic needs oil. We’re the largest oil producer in the world now. But we still import oil! Why? Because the oil we produce isn’t entirely the right kind for everything we do with it.
An end state where the US is an island cannot exist without massive shifts in production and consumption habits.
Maybe you’re saying though that shift should happen and that end state is good?
> But we still import oil! Why? Because the oil we produce isn’t entirely the right kind for everything we do with it.
Just wanted to elaborate a bit on this. Oil is a fantastic example for "why international trade good?" Oil is weird in that it is a fungible commodity (one barrel here is the same as one barrel there), but at the same time, functionality it's not. Each oil formation has different geology and chemistry. There are light sweet crudes, sour crudes, heavy crudes, and so on [1], and refineries (which are massive capital investments with specialized work forces) are typically tooled out to only process one type or family of types of crude oil products.
One paradox of the USA crude industry is that nearly 70% of U.S. refining capacity runs most efficiently with heavier crude, but our shale crude is lighter. Thus, 90% of crude oil imports into the United States are heavier than U.S.-produced shale crude [2]. So even if we had perfect supply/demand of crude within the USA, we would not be able to run our refineries efficiently without a massive overhaul. They have been built under decades of the assumption of a high degree of free international trade.
And these companies will be loathe to invest in retooling if they believe that the tariffs will just be rolled back in four years.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crude_oil_products
[2] https://www.afpm.org/newsroom/blog/whats-difference-between-...
> That potential end state isn’t possible is the point of my initial comment. It is as infeasible as the weather to control where natural resources are located
You might as well not have commented in the first place if you wanted to throw out my entire premise.
Your premise is the goal of globalism though. You just draw larger lines. If your premise is the lines _must_ contain only the US as it is today then it’s impossible to have enough coffee for the entire country among other thing.
But what are you even asking? Would it be good for Americans if the US could produce every single thing conceivable to fully meet demand domestically? Yes, it would be. But it will not and cannot happen, so it’s not a useful thought exercise.
Would it be amazing if I was 6’7”, super athletic, played in the NBA, and I was also super smart and everyone loved me, especially the ladies? Sure. But I’ve gotta play the cards I’ve been dealt (I think there are some people who love me, at least).
No, it's not a desirable end state. If we produced everything in the US — just assuming we had magic tech to make it possible - we'd have less and be poorer. Americans today live like kings from 200 years ago, in large part due to global trade.
Yep that's fair.
I had said this somewhere else in the thread as well, but domestic production is a pretty bad idea if success metrics revolve around prices, quantity, or some specific quality metrics.
Where it would potentially be a good approach is if the primary goals are relates to self reliance, sustainability, resilience, etc. I don't think many people actually care about that at the national level though, and our economy as-is almost certainly couldn't allow it.
You think commercial crops have no dependency on weather and growing conditions?
You should try farming mangoes in Vermont!
Where will you grow enough coffee to supply the USA?
Did you forget how growing crops works?
> I'm talking about something we absolutely can, whether we produce our own goods domestically.
Do you think we could grow enough coffee, tea, bananas, avocados and olive oil?
[flagged]
If global warming keeps up, we'll be growing pineapples in Vermont in no time!