Normally, I favor market mechanisms over central planning, hands down. OTOH, the current Covid-19 challenge makes us consider some of the market's drawbacks in a challenging world.
Market forces tend to cause one to procure things from whoever will produce them to an acceptable quality level and timeline most cheaply. We've been following that model with China, a nation whose behavior indicates they view us both as a major customer and as a hostile rival for world hegemony. Perhaps we should rethink this policy.
Much of what we purchase from China is things we can do without, things which we use for a season or a year, wear out, and discard, like t shirts and toasters. Things we consume but could substitute for, or produce ourselves. I have no problem with our continuing to purchase them from the lowest bidder, often China.
When we start single-sourcing things from China without which we cannot easily survive or thrive, like semiconductors used in military applications or antibiotics or rare earth minerals, we hand our primary opponent a weapon it can easily deploy against us. This we must not do.
Suppose it is the case China will sell these essential items to, for instance, Peru or Ireland or Chad more cheaply than we can produce them in North America. So what? Many nations with few international responsibilities can buy from the lowest bidder, or maintain a lame military, and in doing so run little risk. The U.S. cannot, we have too much to lose, our responsibilities are too great.
I begin to see in several of his comments that the trans-ideological truth of this strategic dilemma has impressed itself upon President Trump. It is my hope that, after the pandemic crisis is past, he will undertake a revision in U.S. make-or-buy policies with preserving our national independence of action as a primary goal.
