[_chu1]

I'm completely OK with American brands making Americans their primary target again.

[hilux]

56% of Apple's revenue is from outside the US. 38% of Boeing's revenue is from outside the US. 58% of Caterpillar's revenue is from outside the US. (Those are the first three companies I checked.)

If American companies took the attitude "America #1, we don't need foreign customers," I don't think you would like the impact the resulting revenue loss would have on the American economy.

[bdjsiqoocwk]

100% agree, than you.

May I ask, where do you find those numbers? Did you actually go to their earnings reports one by one, or is there an easier way?

[mistrial9]

> on the American economy

looks upward for the trickling down implied here

[FrustratedMonky]

But overall total trade deficit is still lopsided correct?

I'm all for increasing exports. What markets are untapped where something could be made in US and exported.

[alephnerd]

By becoming completely insular, you lose the ability to innovate, as you cater to a subset of consumers and as such aren't being pushed to test the limits of the existing status quo.

For example, look at what happened to Sony - they were a darling of the Consumer Technology space and the Apple of the 1990s-early 2000s, but because they concentrating on the Japanese market at the expense of the global market, they fell drastically behind in innovation.

A similar story happened with Nokia, RIM, GM, etc as well.

Competition from players like BYD, DJI, and Huawei has helped incentivize innovation in the Li-on Battery space (eg. Panasonic, Tesla), the low budget drone space (eg. Andruil, Skydio), and 5-6G sector (eg. Cradlepoint, Qualcomm)

An insular America is an uncompetitive America. An uncompetitive America is a weaker America. A weaker America opens political vacuums from the Red Sea to Central Africa to Myanmar.

[mionhe]

I think the key word there was 'primary'. I think it's okay to have a main audience in mind that isn't the entire world.

[GenerWork]

>A weaker America opens political vacuums from the Red Sea to Central Africa to Myanmar.

I'm 100% OK with this. If we need to become weaker in order to shrink the size of our military, then we should do exactly that.

[elzbardico]

The problem is that with giant trade deficits since the the Reagan Era, either Americans scale down their consumption habits by a lot, or America needs to export more.

America can't rely on the global appetite for the US dollar and US Treasury Bonds forever to keep consuming what other countries consume.

The Petro Dollar is not going anywhere anytime soon, but it definitely has a future expiration date. The global demand for the dollar and US bonds won't disappear tomorrow, but it will cool down somewhere in the future, and thus America can't let go of international markets, unless it wants to downsize a lot.

And the problem with Downsizing is that due to the absurd levels of wealth concentration, the middle-class and the poor are really poorly equipped for such a thing.

We are not on the 50's and 60's anymore when the US share of the global GDP was almost half of it, if we measure it using PPP, it is only about 15%, less than China. America can't just rest on its laurels, it needs to be globally competitive.

[jajko]

US is tiny. Sure, economy is currently a multiplier, but less than 5% of world population lives in US.

If you are a bit smart and grok those numbers, you will leave such... non-smart opinions behind, or competition will steam roll you.

Or don't, rest of the world deserves some good economical growth too, much more than spoiled west TBH.

[eptcyka]

If you want to grow, you target customers, not Americans or American customers.

[crossroadsguy]

Is it some sort of MATA (with T standing for "Target")?

[delfinom]

Americans are out of money and wall street needs to keep the ponzi of infinite growth going.

[bdjsiqoocwk]

This is loser talk.