re: While America Slept -- Bessent's Remarks to the 2026 Reagan National Economic Forum

Also I'll just reiterate that the "national security" argument still describes what I am discussing

quote:

---

Forcing redistribution from more productive economic endeavors to less productive economic endeavors, ultimately.

Trading high end tech or services for making widgets is a bad trade.

---

quote:

---

To make these manufactured good viable to be produced in the US, you have to raise prices (without other undiscussed policies like eliminating minimum wage or attacking the regulatory state) or subsidize the industry via government.

Either route means less money circulating elsewhere in the economy. Either consumers are paying more for these goods or are being taxed.

---

Whether you make this an official DOD policy and have them redistribute the excess taxes or you regulate to raise the prices, the end result is the same.

Which is why you had no response to this:

quote:

---

This manufacturing moved offshore because it was too expensive and not profitable. China is actually facing this today, too. They're losing market share in lower-level manufacturing to poorer countries who offer lower salaries. China's economic/SES growth has made their labor too expensive, too (and it's drastically cheaper than our labor)

How are we going to compete with the labor savings that Bangladesh, Vietnam, and poor African countries offer? It will require subsidizing it, either via tax/spend policies or bureaucratically forcing higher prices creating the redistribution.

---

Even under the "national security" argument, what I described above is still true. All that you're doing by falling back on "national security" is trying to justify why you want the negative economic externalities. It's not answering the question of how we avoid the economic costs; instead it's just an argument to justify the economic and SOL devolution.

quote:

---

I couldn't care less what you claim to have "covered earlier" with other posters in various other threads which you'd like me to waste time searching for.

CV19 n95 mask price gouging DOES NOT equate to "infrastructure."

---

Jesus I shouldn't have to explain this to you in this manner

The masks aren't actually "infrastructure" they are "national security".

But, you give a good example of my point, because they're not actually part of national security, yet they're your example for why we need this socialism.

You're using a poll-approved label ("national security"), which is really just a malleable term that means nothing and allows government intervention anywhere (like subsidizing n95 masks). This is LITERALLY the Leftist playbook that they used with infrastructure. You use a poll-approve label which is nothing more than a malleable term that means nothing and ends up as "child care".

quote:

---

In the same way we have always "competed" with 3rd word trinket production.

---

Whish is?

quote:

---

The overwhelming question is could an international entity leverage its advantage regarding what we ELECTIVELY CEDE. Do you see Bangladesh doing that, as a threat to US sovereignty

---

What are we ceding to Blangladesh?

quote:

---

Our CV19 Economic Shutdown was/is NOT critical to National Security ... in your opinion?

---

This is a pivot from discussing n95 masks.

We didn't shut down b/c we didn't have n95 masks. We remained shut down long after the n95 shortage was rectified.

quote:

---

We didn't shut down b/c we didn't have n95 masks

---

YES, WE ACTUALLY DID!

Why TF would we have closed down w/ n95's protecting everyone?
It would not have happened.

Why would we have even done the 6' spacing BS?
There would have been no reason.

There would be 'literally' (to employ your favorite word) no reason whatsoever to shut anything down.

quote:

---

The shortage ended and the shutdowns continued

---

You are honestly arguing a societal lagtime? You are joking?

quote:

---

Tons of people wouldn't wear masks that had no real annoyance

---

I'm not sure what you thought you were trying to say.

Given a choice between wearing an n95 for a few months which would have shutdown the spread (and left the economy open), and the annoyance of wearing an n95, the pubic would have gladly chosen the "annoyance."

quote:

---

As I said, you've dug in an indefensible position

---

You are lost in your argument, perhaps because you partially missed the fact this switched from a legal to a medical discussion?

quote:

---

You are lost in your argument,

---

Not at all. I understand you are making the false claim that n95 mask availability would have stopped shutdowns

Also, now you're ignoring me pointing out you're ignoring the pertinent questions

quote:

---

And you've ignored the pertinent questions about this indefensible position.

---

quote:

---

I understand you are making the false claim that n95 mask availability would have stopped shutdowns

---

NO!
The claim relates to consumer hazard.

CV19 masks are but one example of consumer hazard as a core derivative of relinquished supply chain control.

(1) US consumers were screwed d/t ceding production capacity for a critical product to another nation. Now you might claim they enjoyed the benefit of n95 masks at 50¢ apiece instead of 55¢, in the same way a homeowner would enjoy the benefit of lower monthly notes if he did without insurance.

(2) Going without insurance is fine and good .... until it isn't. But for normal folks, once burned is enough. They never go uninsured again. Yet here you are arguing for just that -- you still stubbornly favor the failed "ceding to foreign control" model.

(3) In the n95 instance, in addition to health hazards, US consumers were faced with 30-fold price increases, or more, for a needed safety product. Why? Because China was left in control of supply d/t to our elective off-shoring, and the CCP decided to hoard medical supplies so they could better prevent disease spread in their own country. But that is the model you favor.

(4) Concomitantly, it is fair to assume 15 days to stop the spread would never have taken place if there were adequate quantities of n95 masks available. Speed of spread, the entire rationale for economic shutdown, would have been curtailed. The self-protection n95's afforded would have sufficient for public confidence. I could easily detail that fact for you in a separate thread, but it's a rabbithole we needn't engage here. At the time, even simple non-selfprotective surgical masks were unavailable, again d/t CCP export disruption. But that is the model you still favor.

Whether we are talking masks, steel, or antibiotics, the production-supply premise remains. We need insurance against disruption. As with any insurance, one never knows when it will be called to task. Your approach is to poo-poo costs and go without. That is the model you favor.

Does that mean we have to manufacture all goods here?
No. But it does mean that for critical manufactured items/materials, supply control cannot be electively ceded to a single foreign source.

E.g., With medical supplies, we had a mitigation strategy. It was to stockpile inventory. It is the same premise as the SPR (which presumably you view as "socialist" and a "subsidy" as well). The stockpile is designed to buffer any supply shock. Reasonable plan. The problem at the outset of CV19 was the Obama administration depleted our stockpiles during the H1N1 influenza outbreak. They distributed nearly 100,000,000 n95 masks, never replaced them, and left the stockpile barren for eight years. It's not clear the Trump admin was even aware of the depletions. As a result, we were fully exposed to supply chain disruption at China's whim, and we left ourselves no buffer and no ability to recover from supply shock in the short term --- i.e., the model you favor.

Summary: Chinese supply hoarding created a severe supply-demand mismatch in the US due to our vulnerabilities. So US consumers got screwed. It's an extremely straightforward premise to which your response is basically ... Nuh-uh.

I guess that is why Bessent would need to give a speech outlining points which many of us understand to be plainly obvious.