I feel the same way in europe, and it applies to much simpler things as well: clothing and shoes. It's incredibly hard to find shoes manufactured locally, or at least regionally.
A lot of "fast fashion" (e.g. Zara et al) is actually made in Portugal to better react to trends. A lot of medium- to high-end shoe brands are made in Italy.
A lot of traditional brands (Like Aigle) still produce most of their stock in Europe.
Doc Martens have a range still made in the UK (and the quality is notably better).
And then there's the bespoke shoe industry in London... just don't expect supermarket prices...
Many shoes are actually still made in Europe (Carmina, Lobb, etc.)
They're usually not the cheap brands though. The low end is dominated by foreign manufacturers, so Europeans have moved up the value chain.
There's Carlos Santos in Portugal which takes advantage of the fact that Portugal has the lowest labor costs in Europe.
Meermin (in Spain) has a hybrid model where they source from Europe (French tanners), start the manufacture in China, and finish in Spain. Their products are reasonably priced, and pretty high quality.
It's a similar story with Dutch clothier SuitSupply. Their designs are European, and they source their fabrics from Italian mills, but sew their suits in China.
meh... clothes and shoes are incredibly easy to make. Sure, it would be expensive to make them in the EU, but I'm sure I could go out of my apartment right now and find 100 people willing and able to do that within an hour.
The issue with chips is, that a modern fab plant costs $1bn. You can't just make it happen, immediately. Same with food production. Technology, guns/steel, energy/oil/gas and food, those are the main "national security" industries.
Not as much as something like semiconductors. If everyone in the world literally stopped selling us shoes, we could likely figure out something passable locally in a few months. Spinning up the tooling and know how for advanced manufacturing of critical technology goods is a years long proposition.
It could in the event of a trade war, which seems increasingly likely for many countries.
Lack of local manufacturing isn't really important in a world of global commerce, but when governments start using their manufacturing as a weapon in dimplomatic disputes it becomes important.
You could argue that about literally anything though, from clothes to bananas - but it's simply not practical for every country to manufacture and produce everything it needs.
Also, clothing and shoes (mentioned in the comment I responded to) are easy to produce without massive capital outlay, and the raw materials are readily available from several countries. I think the local manufacturing argument makes more sense with regard to items that are seen as critical, and which would be impractical to obtain from elsewhere - such as motherboards, processors and the like.
there's a trade-off for sure, but at the moment some countries make a very small percentage of their goods locally, which leaves them more vulnerable to tariffs in a trade war.
Whilst raw materials could be easily available, there is a ramp-up time to move any industry locally, both in terms of creating the manufacturing infrastructure, and in terms of acquiring the skills needed locally.
No, but it matters that you can't get any because some adversary decides to cut your supply. Protecting your supply by force is obviously easier if the source is within the borders of your country.
This is the basic reasoning of every "national security" argument about having domestic production.
The parent is merely stating that basic necessities are also important for the well-being of the nation, it's not just about the IC for ballistic missiles or the 3G circuits that allows Trump to always be on twitter.
I get what the sentiment was, but it could be applied to literally anything.
I don't think it matters for many items, such as clothing and shoes, because they are cheap to make and readily available from several countries. So even if China randomly decided that they wouldn't ship any clothes to the US anymore (which would hurt them just as much, so is unlikely), you can just as easily obtain them from Bangladesh or Vietnam, or indeed make them yourself.
Something’s odd: in the US midrange clothing is from europe. Be they shoes, sweaters (pullovers) shirts, etc. Japan enjoys the same cachet. We also have domestic brands which enjoy similar preference.
While they tend to cost more, for the most part, unless you follow the vagaries of fashion, they are worth the extra money.
They're not just worth it in the sense that the difference is measurable, they're also often worth it in the sense that they're more economical over time.
I bought a belt from an American company after researching different leathers. It's lasting me years at this point. I'm sure it will last decades. It's crazy how much money I wasted before on belts that were a third of the price.
Both top grain and full grain have their uses, so it depends on whether you want some character in the item as it ages or not. Generally speaking if you don't know what to do, go with full grain. It's expensive, but it's great.
The only case where I'd recommend top grain over full grain is if you're buying something where the leather needs to stay in the background. Think a multi-material item like a bag that has both a bright cloth part and a muted leather part then you'll want top grain for the muted leather because it will keep a more consistent style over time so it won't split your attention when looking at it in the future.
I have found no other use for the other types of leather. I'm far from an expert, but from my research and personal experience I really think that the rest of the leather out there is complete garbage.
