Initial Thoughts Post Reindustrialize

I had a nice car ride home to decompress and think about my experience at the #Reindustrialize Conference - an incredible gathering of innovative, optimistic, and concerned - present and future leaders of American manufacturing. As a student with time before graduation (and, thus, nothing to really sell or buy), I think I got heard perspectives that might not have been shared between other groups. If your curious about less spoken about perspectives on the future of Reindustrialization, here’s your thread(s)🧵:

Today, I’ll talk about 3 Areas I thought would be interesting to discuss immediately post-conference w/ more coming in the near future! Many are critical, but I felt that the criticism was necessary to move continued discourses to more useful areas! Topics are included in a # thread with that specific conversation continuing w/ a letter.

As a disclaimer - though I tried to talk to everyone I could and go to as many sessions as possible - I am just one man and had time limits. Thus, if you think I missed an important conversation or breakout, I’d love to hear about it!

Politics, Separate America’s, and Is Bipartisanship Possible?:

Policy was a substantial topic of the conference, w/ breakout for maritime, manufacturing, robotics, education, and so on. There was some sentiment in questions and in debates that the growing ideological divides might limit reindustrialization; however, examples of Op. Warp Speed and the Chips Act were brought up to demonstrate bipartisan action on critical issues. The idea that a war would bring us all together was also floated.

I and several people I talked to felt that the partisan divide was somewhat glossed over in this regard. There’s really only two good and broadly known examples of large bipartisan action in the past two decades (not counting bills w/ just a few seats flipping). Even then, both bills had their own set of large debacles that is making their implementation limited and w/ problems arising in delays and lack of workforce. Not to mention the deluge of amendments added to any bill to fund superfluous and unrelated pieces that add to the difficulties of passing and implementing legislation.

Perhaps a bigger issue in the partisan space is the question of ‘What Future of America are we Building, Investing, and Fighting for?’ The core of American politics has increasingly turned to matters of identity - are we urban, multicultural, etc. nation that exists to export our liberal ideology and/or another story/stories (it’d be harder to list one that fits the coalition making the right). Such as in the fight w/ Russia, it’s been difficult to build and maintain a coalition when there’s been several favorable factors for our involvement:

1) few economic/import implications for average Americans, 2) a long drawn out conflict spanning years, 3) a nation in Europe that therefore has a less tainted historic/cold war vibe to it (i.e. compared to Vietnam or Korea). I’d love to think that a possibly quick conflict that would risk the foundations of the American economy, in a place that is seen as substantially different by average Americans would cause the nation to unite and want to directly fight a prolonged war against a near-peer adversary - but I don’t see the precedent or practical will to fight what many of us see as a clear nation security and geopolitical issue. Can any coalition convince Americans to surrender half of their product consumption and buying power to free an island on the other side of the Pacific (not to mention have their sons and daughters killed)? And if so, for which future of America? Military recruiting and civic engagement are clearly down for this reason of a uncertainty of what America was, is, and will be!

All of this is to say - Though I want reindustrialization and a bright future for the USA, I don’t know if the cultural and political capital still exists. Having lived in Oregon, the future of America proposed and desired is extremely different that in rural Kansas (and to this point is causing Oregon to split). The differing visions of America are not questions of a few percentage differences of tax rate or debating the benefits of tariffs - they are issues of core identity, history, economy, and direction.

Will reindustrialization overcome political and social divides to reinvigorate the nation and economy? We will have to see!

Venture Capital, What is it Good For?

Not something I caught myself - but expressed by a lot of policy and startup guys was the prevalence of VCs, PEs, and banks. I’d be curious of the actual stat - I’d guess 20-25% of the attendees fell within these categories. VCs clearly play an important role in the world of startups - which were present in large numbers (~60% of attendees). There was an air of concern from the policy people and some startup guys that they were too involved.

Now, I don’t really have a developed opinion on the matter myself but it was an interesting observation, especially taken with the section Where was Uncle Sam? There was open discussion that policy was necessary, most people did not feel that the market could fix these issues in the necessary timeline, and so on; however, many of the VCs I talked to seemed keen on being the keys to fix the capital and policy issues. Whereas, the policy people tended to think the VCs were new to the game, lacked historical perspectives, lacked influence to change necessary policy, and were a bit too optimistic about their own capabilities and timelines.

To the VCs credit, many of them seemed to be scoping the field and trying to sniff out if the hype was real. Was it going to be big or a spark/bubble? Many of the VC guys I talked to seemed to have had manufacturing experience - far more promising than the pure spreadsheets crowd. Still, there seemed to be a mismatch between private money and public engagement. Some VCs seemed convinced the market could fix issues w/ tech, software, and will power. The policy and startup guys seemed less convinced.

There also seemed to be a sense that the VCs were too optimistic about timelines, adoption rates, and that reindustrialization was inevitable. Perhaps this optimism is a necessary quality of a VC. Were VCs involved too much and/or are they too convicted of their ability to influence to lead reindustrialization?

Where was Uncle Sam?

A concerning area for myself and MANY people I talked to was the 1) lack of governmental representation, 2) unwillingness of the government to change from focusing on traditional methods, and 3) their resistance to criticism for current and historic shortcomings. For the timeline of getting a new American base of shipbuilding capability up and running within 2-3 years, we will need governmental engagement. To help clear red tape surrounding factory construction, expansion of energy production, etc., we will need governmental engagement.

Engagement like that in the current moment is a bit unprecedented. Effectively, an attaché or board w/ decision making capabilities that works to clear the way for the great startups present at the conference.

Addressing Point 1: We saw a video from representatives and had a few bureaucrats from throughout the defense sphere present; however, this clearly is not a showing that creates faith that Uncle Sam has our back and is going to help us move mountains to fix our nation’s current deficiencies (even if we’re the one’s doing most of the hard work).

It does not seem that the political class necessarily sees the issues to be as big or as pressing as many of us do. The trade group, though a very good and very needed start, does not seem to address all these issues, particularly on the timeline desired, nor does it have the capability. Hopefully, through the new Alliance’s efforts the necessary bridges can be built; however, it does not seem that Uncle Sam is particularly invested or interested in our work at the current moment!

Addressing Point 2: I’ll use 2 stories to demonstrate the focus on traditional manufacturing from government reps.

In a panel about the future of manufacturing, a small debate broke out between a representative from DARPA, Chris McHenry, and Kevin Czinger about the role of government in scaling and manufacturing capability. Kevin’s idea was that the government should be helping to scale novel manufacturing techniques. There was a bit of talking past each other, adding to the confusion; however, the core of the issue was situated around the inability to see past current manufacturing techniques and capabilities. To Kevin’s point, having a scaling bank is not picking favorites and allows for the scalability of new, competitive techniques.

There seemed to be a sentiment that radically new manufacturing techniques that could return the edge to the USA were not possible or an interest from DARPA’s standpoint, to which Chris replied that he was already doing many of these new techniques and selling parts to auto and aerospace brands. They were already changing the assumptions of historic manufacturing and DARPA didn’t seem particularly interested or concerned in being involved with it.

In a discussion about Maritime policy (revisited in point 3), the fact US shipyards operate like they’re in the 70’s was brought up. Some DOD/Navy attached bureaucrats complained that the trainees by the navy were more than well trained and capable. The adage that the difference between a Korean and American shipyard was brought up: “The difference between a US and Korean shipyard is the sound of hammers - you don’t hear them in Korea.” Things continued - “Even NAVSEA has admitted the trainees are useless and unproductive.”

“We’re doing the best we can” was the most substantive response from the bureaucrats. There seemed to be no plan to change shipbuilding techniques or approaches - It was already too difficult to teach how to properly hammer the sheets together and the cartel or shipbuilders, the unions, and friends in Washington were given as reasons that change was impossible.

Both stories illustrate that even much of the well-meaning old guard seem to be clinging to how things used to be done and don’t seem interested or willing to push for changes necessary to make the US competitive.

Addressing Point 3: There is a very real barrier beyond partisanship within the government demonstrated in the same Maritime policy meeting: several bureaucrats were arguing that they were not being given enough credit for their training programs. There is a general sense I gather from talking with several government representatives and those adjacent to them: They are trying their best and should be judged on intention, not outcome. I understand the sentiment - however, compared to any criticism leveled against founders/policy people/employees in private conversations or public debates - there was far more anger, pride, and unwillingness to take blame in discussion w/ the government crowds. To many people I talked to - this tendency of defensiveness was a very human barrier to reindustrialization.

Uncle Sam seemed marginally present at the conference. Most feel that we cannot pull off this monumental feat without him, his money, his direction, and his policymaking. Can we overcome the issues of governmental interest, inability to see the opportunities of new techniques, and the bureaucracy?

Conclusion

Reindustrialize was a once in a lifetime opportunity to be at. I had far too many conversations and picked up on too many patterns to outline in a single tweet. I’ll be dropping more nuggets in the future about what I observed and the implications I see it having on the future of our movement! Though this thread has an overall critical tone, I am still optimistic about the future! There is no better group of motivated, intelligent, and gritty people in the world - these men and women are the best chance we have at pulling off reindustrialization!