Americans need to get over their view of “Asia” as being about making shoes. When I was working in engineering in the early aughts, we mocked the Chinese as being able only to copy American technology. Today, China is competitive with or ahead of America in key technology areas, including nuclear power, AI, EVs, and batteries.

We need to anticipate a future where China is equal to America on a per capita basis, but four times bigger. Is that a world where “Designed by Apple in California, Made in China” still makes sense? What will be America’s competitive edge in that scenario?

What seems most likely to me in the future is that the US will find itself in the same position the UK is in now. Dominating finance and services won’t mean anything when both the IP and the physical products are being produced somewhere else.

> But if we bump the cost of freight, insurance, and customs from $5 to, say, $28, then they wholesale the shoes to Footlocker for about $75. And if Footlocker purchases Nike shoes for $75, then they retail them for $150. Everyone needs to fixed percentages to avoid losses.

I don't understand this paragraph. If Footlocker was okay with $50 profit/shoe, why do they need to claim $75 profit/shoe in their costs per shoe go up? The costs of handling the shoes, retail space, advertising, and labor are all fixed.

Trying to summarize the summary for myself

From a $100 shoe that sells for $76:

- $24 goes overseas (22 cost, 2 freight)

- $8 goes to the US gov't (3 import, 2 Nike tax, 3 Footlocker tax)

- $33 goes to US employees or businesses (5 Nike marketing, 11 Nike expenses, 17 Footlocker expenses)

- $5 goes to Nike (11% return)

- $6 goes to Footlocker (8% return)

But now with 100% tariffs, it's a $100 shoe that sells for $100 (or a $132 shoe that sells for $100) and:

- $24 goes overseas (22 cost, 2 freight)

- $29 goes to the US gov't (22 import, 3 Nike tax, 4 Footlocker tax)

- $33 goes to US employees or businesses (5 Nike marketing, 11 Nike expenses, 17 Footlocker expenses)

- $7 goes to Nike (11% return, 7.15 exactly)

- $7 goes to Footlocker (8% return, 7.45 exactly)

And if a US shoemaker wanted to undercut the import, a Made in USA shoe that sells for $100:

- $7+ goes to the US gov't (? shoemaker tax, 3 Nike tax, 4 Footlocker tax)

- $79 goes to US employees or businesses (46 to shoemaker, 5 Nike marketing, 11 Nike expenses, 17 Footlocker expenses)

- $7 goes to Nike (11% return, 7.15 exactly)

- $7 goes to Footlocker (8% return, 7.45 exactly)

I've always wondered why the supply chain has exponential price increase at each step. The example given (guessed at) is the factory produces the shoe for $12.5 and sells it to Nike for $25. Nike then sells it to Footlocker for $50 and they then sell to a customer for $100. Everyone expects to mark up their costs by about 100 percent. Why is that the case? Even if we say the markup isn't 100 percent, why is it a percentage of cost at all? If the shoe factory can make $12 then why can't Nike and Footlocker both make $12 and retail the shoe for $50?

I'm not saying things should be different, just wondering why it is the way it is. If Footlocker was also selling some cheapo shoe for $50 presumably they do the same amount of work to bring that to the store. Are they only paying $25 for those? Why does it cost half for them to handle a cheaper shoe?