[obblekk]

> Having access to goods and service is what gives you a better living standard

I think the good faith critique is access to imports can be taken away by the other country if they want. eg. rare earth metals. So being too heavily reliant on imports without the capacity to produce domestically is less long run access

[neilwilson]

Only if you have a single supplier.

For imports to be useful you need multiple suppliers all of whom have to have capacity to expand if one of the supplier lets you down.

Same as in business.

Industrial policy should decide domestic vs external production on that basis.

As the world moves to trade blocs the case for trade between trade blocs falls - precisely because the risk of getting left high and dry increases

[JackYoustra]

I mean China has cut off rare earths from time to time, and from time to time we don't see crippling shortages but a rather quick supply response.

If you're concerned about short / medium term timeframes, I've yet to see a broad analysis that showed stockpiling (can even do it privately!) being insufficient.

[elzbardico]

Yes. Too much of a good thing, or a good thing at the wrong place or instant of time, ends up not being a good thing.

I would recommend against having sex in a subway station at rush hour, or drinking French Cognac during a job interview, although both are good things.

We can and should discuss how much trade deficit, and the nature of it, but in essence, it is still a good thing if you don't owe to other countries money in a currency you don't control to have this deficit.

[XorNot]

Except the US has a realistic protectionist policy it can use: defence production. It's an industry which is diverse, naturally demands locality, but can also provide an export market.

And very much was a core US growth export till very recently.