I'm sure the price will drop in the US for manufacturing devices (because the alternative is going out of business -- very few businesses are so sentimental about nationalistic supply chains that they'd eat a multi-hundred-percent markup).
But I'm interested in a more fact-oriented discussion (you probably don't think those are specific, detailed facts). The US, for instance, is relatively open for free flow of capital into and out of the country -- China doesn't allow that, and that helps commerce here. But if China changes their policies (which is not totally impossible), and, for instance, capital transfer out of the US is restricted as a result of a negotiation with Mexico (which a presidential candidate seems to be willing to do) then that advantage disappears. The Could also disappear if another major party's candidate for president gets their wish as regards offshore profits. Plenty of protectionism in all major parties these days, enough to sink this advantage, at least.
The US has a relatively high-trust business culture, which is more durable. But it's also changing in China, moving (perhaps not as quickly as some would like) away from a guangxi-based business system.
So a lot of these theoretically defensible advantages are actually pretty weak, and (while defensible) ill-defended.
> But I'm interested in a more fact-oriented discussion (you probably don't think those are specific, detailed facts).
I like facts as much at the next guy, but good, actionable, agenda-free facts are actually pretty hard to come by. So many times I've read a convincing article painting things a certain way, and then later seeing one convincingly saying that the previous article was full of misinformation.
You don't get out of the need for good, experience-based intuitive analysis just by looking at facts. And facts won't prevent you from being horribly wrong.
> Plenty of protectionism in all major parties these days, enough to sink this advantage, at least.
Protectionism is fighting a tide, it doesn't actually possess the capability to reverse decades of progress on globalization. Only to accelerate or decelerate it. It's now market forces that make the biggest difference, not political ones. Politics was never bigger than the market anyway, which is why market-friendly policies are better for people in the long run.
> The US simply has better DNA for commerce
I'm sure the price will drop in the US for manufacturing devices (because the alternative is going out of business -- very few businesses are so sentimental about nationalistic supply chains that they'd eat a multi-hundred-percent markup).
But I'm interested in a more fact-oriented discussion (you probably don't think those are specific, detailed facts). The US, for instance, is relatively open for free flow of capital into and out of the country -- China doesn't allow that, and that helps commerce here. But if China changes their policies (which is not totally impossible), and, for instance, capital transfer out of the US is restricted as a result of a negotiation with Mexico (which a presidential candidate seems to be willing to do) then that advantage disappears. The Could also disappear if another major party's candidate for president gets their wish as regards offshore profits. Plenty of protectionism in all major parties these days, enough to sink this advantage, at least.
The US has a relatively high-trust business culture, which is more durable. But it's also changing in China, moving (perhaps not as quickly as some would like) away from a guangxi-based business system.
So a lot of these theoretically defensible advantages are actually pretty weak, and (while defensible) ill-defended.