TL;DR
Economists Brad DeLong and Noah Smith used their Hexapodia podcast to discuss whether and how the United States should rebuild manufacturing. They see supply-chain security as a leading rationale, while arguing automation makes a return to mass factory employment unlikely; they also point to land-use rules and bank lending as potential obstacles.
Economists Brad DeLong and Noah Smith have discussed the case for rebuilding U.S. manufacturing in a new episode of their Hexapodia podcast, arguing that supply-chain security is a stronger rationale than a return to large numbers of factory jobs. In a post describing the conversation, Smith said they see land-use constraints and limited bank lending as two potential barriers to industrial expansion.
Get business pricing on office and shipping supplies
- Business-only prices and quantity discounts
- Tax-exempt purchasing
- Multiple users, one account, clear invoices
Smith outlined three possible reasons to expand manufacturing: geopolitical and military security, stronger economic growth through industrial clustering, and well-paid factory jobs that could support the middle class. He said he and DeLong viewed the third argument as unlikely to succeed in its traditional form, given the expected role of automation and AI-driven robotics in manufacturing.
In Smith’s account, automated factories could still support employment indirectly. Workers and owners based near a plant may spend their income in the surrounding area, generating local service jobs through what economists call a local multiplier. That effect depends, he wrote, on factory personnel living near the facilities and spending money locally; the post does not quantify how many jobs such activity might create.
The discussion’s practical focus was what the United States would need to expand industrial capacity. Smith summarized the tentative answer as more land for development and more bank loans. He linked land-use reform to a permitting bill moving through Congress, and said he plans to write more about bank finance. His proposal to give large U.S. banks selective exemptions from post-2008 Dodd-Frank restrictions was presented as an idea, not as enacted policy or a settled recommendation from both participants.
Security Takes Priority Over Factory Jobs
The discussion frames reindustrialization less as a promise to restore the factory employment patterns of the past and more as a question of economic resilience and defense capacity. Smith wrote that U.S. reliance on supply chains dominated by China could create risks for defense production and other industries with military applications. He also cited China’s use of export controls as a reason to reduce exposure to supply disruptions or political pressure.
That argument has implications for how policymakers judge industrial policy. If factories are increasingly automated, the number of jobs on a plant floor may be a poor measure of the policy’s value. The discussion instead raises other tests: whether domestic production can supply strategically important goods, whether industrial clusters contribute to growth, and whether communities capture local benefits. Those are arguments in the podcast account, not measured outcomes established by the post.
Products Worth Considering
Apple MacBook Air 13-inch with M5 Chip, 16GB Memory, 512GB SSD, Silver
FlexiSpot E6 Electric Standing Desk, 55 × 28 in, Bamboo Top, White Frame
Canon SELPHY CP1500 Wireless Dye-Sublimation Photo Printer Bundle with 108 Sheets of Paper and 3 Ink Cartridges
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Three Arguments for Rebuilding Industry
Smith’s post presents the episode as a discussion of why the United States might want more manufacturing, rather than an announcement of a government program or a new investment commitment. The first rationale is defense and geopolitical security: domestic or diversified production could reduce dependence on supply chains that a rival country might control. The second is economic growth, through the clustering of firms and related activity. The third is employment and economic equality, through high-paying blue-collar work.
Smith said he and DeLong were skeptical that manufacturing can again provide mass employment for semi-skilled workers at the scale associated with earlier industrial eras. He attributed that view to automation, including robotics aided by AI. He also pointed to Ukraine’s drone and robotics industry, which he described as having grown in response to the need to resist Russia’s invasion. He called it a relevant example, while acknowledging that wartime necessity makes it an imperfect model for U.S. policy.
The post also connects the proposed land-use issue to a permitting bill then moving through Congress. It provides no bill number, legislative status beyond that description, or details of the provisions. Smith’s comments on bank lending and possible changes to Dodd-Frank were similarly framed as an area for further discussion, rather than a finalized policy plan.
Policy Details and Job Effects Remain Open
The post does not provide a transcript, data on the scale or cost of U.S. reindustrialization, or estimates of the jobs that new factories and local spending might generate. It also does not establish how much manufacturing is likely to be automated, or how quickly. The claim that mass semi-skilled factory employment is unlikely to return is Smith’s account of the speakers’ view, not a finding backed in the post by employment projections.
Other details are unresolved: the post does not identify which industries or supply chains should be prioritized, explain how a local multiplier would vary by community, or spell out how banks’ lending practices would change. Smith’s suggestion of selective Dodd-Frank exemptions remains his proposal in the post; there is no indication that DeLong endorsed its specifics or that lawmakers have adopted it.
Permitting and Finance Are Next Questions
Smith said he expected to write more about the role of bank finance in manufacturing. The post does not give a publication date for that follow-up. Readers can also track the permitting bill he referenced, but its identity and subsequent progress cannot be determined from the source material.
The broader policy question remains how to weigh security and growth gains against costs, and how to make sure industrial investment benefits the places where facilities operate. The podcast post sets out the participants’ reasoning and tentative priorities; it does not announce a specific U.S. reindustrialization plan or a next formal decision.
Key Questions
What did Brad DeLong and Noah Smith discuss?
They discussed whether and how the United States should rebuild manufacturing, including security, growth, jobs, land use and access to bank loans.
Why do they see manufacturing as a security issue?
Smith said domestic or diversified production could reduce reliance on supply chains dominated by China, particularly for defense and dual-use goods. This is the rationale he attributed to the discussion, not evidence that a particular supply chain has already been secured.
Do they expect reindustrialization to bring back mass factory employment?
Smith said he and DeLong were skeptical. He argued that automation and AI-driven robotics could limit the return of large numbers of semi-skilled factory jobs, while factories might still support local service employment indirectly.
What barriers to industrial expansion did Smith identify?
Smith pointed to land-use rules and bank lending. He connected land use to a permitting bill moving through Congress and floated possible changes to bank regulation as an idea for discussion, not enacted policy.
Source: noahpinion.blog
