Please no. The last thing we need is another bunch of half-baked regulations passed because a bunch of people who don't know what they're talking about demanded "something must be done!" in response to some temporary crisis. COVID will subside eventually, dysfunctional regulations have much greater staying power.
The regulations are not for COVID. They are for future supply chain shocks. The executive branch has already begun to explore the problem (see citation below).
“The 100-day reports make clear: more secure and resilient supply chains are essential to our national security, our economic security, and our technological leadership. The work of strengthening America’s critical supply chains will require sustained focus and investment.”
Demanding it not be so will make things permanently more expensive for everyone, not only in the monetary sense, but also in labor and material. Subsidize or ration if we must, but only temporarily and in response to a crisis.
>> Yes, but you must use regulation to require a resilient supply chain, as it’s cheaper not to build it to be resilient. Capital optimizes for capital, people must optimize for people.
> Please no. The last thing we need is another bunch of half-baked regulations passed because a bunch of people who don't know what they're talking about demanded "something must be done!" in response to some temporary crisis. COVID will subside eventually, dysfunctional regulations have much greater staying power.
Pick your poison: either capital decides to build a sufficiently resilient supply chain or they get subjected to "half-baked regulations." They're not going to do the former, so say hello to the latter.
Do nothing and profiteer during the next crisis is not an option capital should be permitted to take.
reply