I, Sharpie(commonplace.org)
commonplace.org
I, Sharpie
https://www.commonplace.org/p/chris-griswold-i-sharpie
38 comments
Yes, I was hoping to see some actual insight on this Domestic Manufacturing Miracle but it seems to just be "if you build it they will come"
This flies in the face of the more than one person I know personally that tried to take stranded US based manufacturing assets and turn them into something with a future. So far, no luck
I still believe there is upside in this space over the next decade or so but I haven't met anyone who's won in a repeatable way yet.
This flies in the face of the more than one person I know personally that tried to take stranded US based manufacturing assets and turn them into something with a future. So far, no luck
I still believe there is upside in this space over the next decade or so but I haven't met anyone who's won in a repeatable way yet.
I suspect there is no steel going into a sharpie; tariffs on steel make it harder to build lots of things in the US.
Biggest tragedy of the Trump economy: the rhetoric is actually right on a number of these trade things, but the tariffs themselves are so goofy and scattershot and, I assume, influenced by corrupt favors, in that they target a ton of raw materials and inputs, hurting the very manufacturing industry they’re claiming to be trying to help.
A sane application of protectionism would be more like Britain in 1800 - Importing a ton of raw materials from overseas (e.g. cotton), and selling them the products made from them (textiles). Tariff Chinese washing machines but not foreign steel, magnets, and wire that we could use to make our own.
Aluminum, iron, and coal mining jobs, etc, are not what I want to add. Car factories on the other hand, sure. So far, the tariffs have been more likely to hurt those factories than help them.
A sane application of protectionism would be more like Britain in 1800 - Importing a ton of raw materials from overseas (e.g. cotton), and selling them the products made from them (textiles). Tariff Chinese washing machines but not foreign steel, magnets, and wire that we could use to make our own.
Aluminum, iron, and coal mining jobs, etc, are not what I want to add. Car factories on the other hand, sure. So far, the tariffs have been more likely to hurt those factories than help them.
I agree; I upvoted because the underlying content was still interesting, but trying to write it as an "i, pencil" pastiche did the author no favours. I would have rathered the article direct the reader to read "I, pencil" and then gone through why they disagreed with its thesis, along with the story of how sharpie manufacturing was brought to the US from china
I, Pencil (Revisited): https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kevin-carson-i-penci...
> It has received fulsome praise from such right-libertarian eminences as economists Milton Friedman and Donald Boudreaux
I had Boudreaux for an economics class in law school. His, shall we say, enthusiasm and dogmatic faith in markets was off putting. I once got riled up and sparred with him a little in class when we were on the subject of monopolies and he was teaching the theory that monopoly profits are an impossibility. My point was that the theory only makes sense when transaction costs are zero; non-zero transaction costs means monopolies can extract excess profits when there's an asymmetry in transaction (particularly financing) costs that favor the monopolist, as there often will be.
But later I realized that, at the end of the day, and like most of abstract economics, the theory was more right than wrong, just incomplete and oversimplified. And I learned much that day. If I had rejected the theory outright and walked way (notwithstanding remembering how to recite it for the exam), I would have ended up in a much worse place intellectually than accepting it, with qualifications, as an important conceptual model. The mature takeaway from his teaching the theory isn't that monopolies can't exist, just that it's more difficult than you'd think, and monopolists' ability to extract profits are bounded by the degree to which the situation deviates from the simplified model world. And doing so puts us in a place where can we can constructively ask and answer quantitative questions, as opposed to debating in qualitative rhetorical terms.
It's childish to nit-pick ideas and then pretend one has vanquished them because they pointed out technicalities about how they're wrong. The point of "I, Pencil" is to teach how humans communicate, cooperate, and produce amazing things through systems and processes that keep them all at arms length, without everyone deliberately working toward the same targeted outcome. Pedagologically, it does teach something profound and non-obvious. Is the essay simplified and reductive? Of course, but no more reductive (and IMO considerably less so) than, e.g., the anti-colonialist rhetoric trotted out in "Revisited", which feels more like an extended ad hominem than a substantive piece about political economics. (And it's worth pointing out that economic thinking can be useful in understanding and addressing colonial exploitation, such as understanding it in terms of cost externalization. And unlike rhetorical moralizing, that approach suggests far more actionable options for systematically ameliorating such exploitation--i.e. how to put our money where our mouth is, literally and figuratively.)
I had Boudreaux for an economics class in law school. His, shall we say, enthusiasm and dogmatic faith in markets was off putting. I once got riled up and sparred with him a little in class when we were on the subject of monopolies and he was teaching the theory that monopoly profits are an impossibility. My point was that the theory only makes sense when transaction costs are zero; non-zero transaction costs means monopolies can extract excess profits when there's an asymmetry in transaction (particularly financing) costs that favor the monopolist, as there often will be.
But later I realized that, at the end of the day, and like most of abstract economics, the theory was more right than wrong, just incomplete and oversimplified. And I learned much that day. If I had rejected the theory outright and walked way (notwithstanding remembering how to recite it for the exam), I would have ended up in a much worse place intellectually than accepting it, with qualifications, as an important conceptual model. The mature takeaway from his teaching the theory isn't that monopolies can't exist, just that it's more difficult than you'd think, and monopolists' ability to extract profits are bounded by the degree to which the situation deviates from the simplified model world. And doing so puts us in a place where can we can constructively ask and answer quantitative questions, as opposed to debating in qualitative rhetorical terms.
It's childish to nit-pick ideas and then pretend one has vanquished them because they pointed out technicalities about how they're wrong. The point of "I, Pencil" is to teach how humans communicate, cooperate, and produce amazing things through systems and processes that keep them all at arms length, without everyone deliberately working toward the same targeted outcome. Pedagologically, it does teach something profound and non-obvious. Is the essay simplified and reductive? Of course, but no more reductive (and IMO considerably less so) than, e.g., the anti-colonialist rhetoric trotted out in "Revisited", which feels more like an extended ad hominem than a substantive piece about political economics. (And it's worth pointing out that economic thinking can be useful in understanding and addressing colonial exploitation, such as understanding it in terms of cost externalization. And unlike rhetorical moralizing, that approach suggests far more actionable options for systematically ameliorating such exploitation--i.e. how to put our money where our mouth is, literally and figuratively.)
I don't understand the appeal of Sharpies. Even if left unused, they die out in a relatively short time. The ones meant for paper are not meant to be used on whiteboards. And they don't write (flow) particularly well on either (the colored ones are particularly terrible on whiteboards).
Maybe I'm using them wrong. Happy to be corrected, and to hear your recos on better alternatives.
Maybe I'm using them wrong. Happy to be corrected, and to hear your recos on better alternatives.
> Even if left unused, they die out in a relatively short time.
Out of all the markers I've ever reached for, I think I've seen every kind except Sharpie go dry.
Out of all the markers I've ever reached for, I think I've seen every kind except Sharpie go dry.
I'm a little confused about your reference to white boards. I didn't know that there are sharpies intended for white boards. Isn't their whole point that they're permanent?
Separately - try "super permanent" sharpies. I love them.
Separately - try "super permanent" sharpies. I love them.
Thoroughly semi permanent if you use the sharpies to write a template, for example a tic-tac-toe board use the whiteboard markers play the game and the regular race shirt who is just the moves and you’re left with the sharpie. In order to get it off you write over the sharpie with a whiteboard marker and then eraser with a regular eraser and then it’ll go away.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I use them frequently for marking non-writing-paper things like aluminum brackets, tape labels on wires, circuit boards, spray bottles of chemicals, boxes, etc.
Do you put the lid back on? I’ve had Sharpies decades old still write like new.
I think they are the best permanent markers out there, i've never had your problems. It's odd because all the other good stationary products are japanese, french or german.
The only complaint I have about sharpies is the crap ergonomics on the barrel, causing people to wrap tape around it just to get a nice grip, which inevitably gets super gross:
https://www.science.org/do/10.1126/science.aan7026/full/lanl...
https://www.science.org/do/10.1126/science.aan7026/full/lanl...
This is a rather strange comment, Sharpies are permanent markers that aren't designed for whiteboards. Nor do they dry out, I've had Sharpies last multiple decades. Are you thinking of something else, perhaps? The benefit of Sharpies is that you can mark most surfaces with them and its permanent. NASA uses Sharpies because they can be used in zero gravity. I suppose you could use them on paper but it's likely they'd probably bleed thru.
Most acrylic markers have similar problems (clogging, drying out too quickly especially if the cap is not perfectly sealed...), but the end results are worth it.
I have a pack of Sharpies which I bought in 2011. Lightly used. Not dry. I store them horizontally.
Jobsite permanent markers are better in every way and are the same price or cheaper.
So they automated most of the production in order to compete with cheap labor. It didn’t bring the manufacturing jobs as we think of them back: it did something better.
Brand-name Sharpie markers cost around US $1 to US $1.50 per marker.
Budget or generic alternatives cost as low as US $0.20 to US $0.50 per marker.
Budget or generic alternatives cost as low as US $0.20 to US $0.50 per marker.
I've tried the cheap ones, have not been impressed.
Onshoring is easier when your product has six parts.
Yes. We should still praise it.
Earnest question (i.e. not implying that I'm arguing for the opposite) - why?
Because it is actually possible to lose manufacturing knowledge over time. Manufacturing things in your country now allows you to more easily manufacture different things in your country in the future. It's a lot harder to make things if your manufacturing talent is spread across multiple countries, especially so if you're making anything that cannot use already commoditized components.
The differences in economies and cultures on the international scale is a capitalism cheat code. We are morally and logically obligated to protect our citizens in all contexts. That doesn't mean "fuck everybody else". It only means prioritizing.
Why is onshoring manufacturing "protecting our citizens"? As I think Matt Levine put it, if we can push computer buttons for a few hours a day and in exchange someone else in another country will do back-breaking labour to make real-world food and toys for us, isn't that a win for us?
It is, assuming a permanent and guaranteed peace. But in the event some of those countries our supply chains traverse decide to alter the deal, it could mean we suffer greatly since we depend on others so heavily - and eventually we might find we cannot make anything nontrivial domestically, as everyone who remembers how is dead.
Defense is the most obvious area where you don’t want to be dependent on a country that might decide become an enemy for your military hardware, but maintaining more than just a defense manufacturing industry strengthens the country further.
Defense is the most obvious area where you don’t want to be dependent on a country that might decide become an enemy for your military hardware, but maintaining more than just a defense manufacturing industry strengthens the country further.
Makes sense - thank you for explaining!
[deleted]
and also when 5 of the six parts are oil derivatives.
Wait we had the power to incentivize America’s industrial base all along, but the main driver for pushing the industrial base over to China was to extract maximum capital. This has been touted as “consumers want lower prices”. What is stopping this brave marker company from profit maximizing again?
It seems the main argument here is the pandemic and supply chain, even though the author is invoking other modern issues from an attempted bipartisan pov.
They mention tariffs but that’s not going to solve the profit maximization desires and shift the costs, it’s just going to make sharpies more expensive in America.
I mean good for American industrialization that we can make our writing utensils here. It’s just pitched in a weird “not trying to be political (but really am being political)” way.
It seems the main argument here is the pandemic and supply chain, even though the author is invoking other modern issues from an attempted bipartisan pov.
They mention tariffs but that’s not going to solve the profit maximization desires and shift the costs, it’s just going to make sharpies more expensive in America.
I mean good for American industrialization that we can make our writing utensils here. It’s just pitched in a weird “not trying to be political (but really am being political)” way.
I think it’s all about short term gain vs long term sustainability. Most companies these days seem to be hugely focused on extracting as much profit as possible, and shoveling to executives and shareholders in the form of stock grants and buy-backs. A real bummer for society, to be honest.
Other companies (seemingly Sharpie?) seem to have the correct, longer view that investing in your employees and controlling your supply chain locally will protect you from potentially disastrous risks overseas. (Be it tariffs or natural disasters.) As the essay mentions, they wanted to invest into making it work domestically before another crazy supply chain shock happened again. Tariffs are a risk because if your product is more expensive and easily replaced by something cheaper, you loose money.
It’s honestly shocking how short-sighted boards are when it comes to employee wages. It’s purely self-serving — get a huge bonus this year by saving costs, company goes downhill, and move on to the next job. Reality is that happy, well-paid employees will stick around. Loosing knowledge with high attrition is costly in a way that’s hard to quantify. It ultimately impacts the quality of your products and resilience of your business.
Other companies (seemingly Sharpie?) seem to have the correct, longer view that investing in your employees and controlling your supply chain locally will protect you from potentially disastrous risks overseas. (Be it tariffs or natural disasters.) As the essay mentions, they wanted to invest into making it work domestically before another crazy supply chain shock happened again. Tariffs are a risk because if your product is more expensive and easily replaced by something cheaper, you loose money.
It’s honestly shocking how short-sighted boards are when it comes to employee wages. It’s purely self-serving — get a huge bonus this year by saving costs, company goes downhill, and move on to the next job. Reality is that happy, well-paid employees will stick around. Loosing knowledge with high attrition is costly in a way that’s hard to quantify. It ultimately impacts the quality of your products and resilience of your business.
Boards are usually shortsighted because they’re usually filled with wealthy people unqualified to work in whatever industry. A lot of board members are there to ensure maximum extraction. It takes someone on the board that the rest of the board is willing to defer, to make good decisions for a business.
This is a nice allegory that hits on a few of the key tensions we're seeing at the moment.
The social and economic order is in constant flux, however, there has been tendency to totalize one preference over the alternatives. The abuse of the "invisible hand" metaphor is one way we see this, being used, as it is, to wave away the 50-year trend of increasing selfishness, moving away from seeing the economy as a potential welfare maximizing technology.
We're in a period in which the massive transfer of wealth to a few people is accepted as inevitable and should be pursued at any and all costs. The original post highlights that (individual and collective) human agency remains, people can make the choice to do things differently.
The social and economic order is in constant flux, however, there has been tendency to totalize one preference over the alternatives. The abuse of the "invisible hand" metaphor is one way we see this, being used, as it is, to wave away the 50-year trend of increasing selfishness, moving away from seeing the economy as a potential welfare maximizing technology.
We're in a period in which the massive transfer of wealth to a few people is accepted as inevitable and should be pursued at any and all costs. The original post highlights that (individual and collective) human agency remains, people can make the choice to do things differently.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45480354
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13016980