America didn't lose its rare earth industry, it sold it
America’s retreat from rare earth mining and processing is framed less as an accidental loss and more as a deliberate sell-off driven by decades of cost-cutting, offshoring, and financialization. Commenters argue this has created strategic vulnerabilities to China and other suppliers, while tying into broader trends like deindustrialization, automation-driven job loss, and the political consequences of short-term profit maximization. Some see renewed state involvement or even nationalization as necessary to rebuild critical supply chains, whereas others contend that high-tech, automated manufacturing and global interdependence are an inevitable feature of mature economies.
Market forces and deindustrialization
- Many argue rare earths and other industries moved abroad because of clear price signals: cheaper energy, labor, laxer pollution rules, lower legal/regulatory costs, and scale advantages elsewhere.
- Some see this as rational short‑term behavior but disastrous long‑term, enabled by political systems that don’t reward strategic thinking.
- Others say this is broader than rare earths: the US “sold” manufacturing and built an economy around finance, software, and services.
Geopolitics, China, and narratives of blame
- One camp says China’s export curbs are a proportional response to US tech sanctions; another sees China as using economic interdependence as leverage.
- There’s disagreement over whether Xi’s leadership fundamentally changed China’s trajectory or whether Western “globalists” misread it all along.
- Some insist an open, democratic China would still pursue national self‑interest and regional dominance; others stress authoritarianism as the core concern.
- Views on China’s “evil” status are sharply divided, with comparisons to Western military interventions.
Manufacturing vs jobs in the US
- Multiple comments stress the US is still a huge manufacturer; what declined is employment, largely attributed to automation, not just offshoring.
- Others counter that offshoring and policy choices did matter, and that losing an “industrial commons” is strategically dangerous.
- Debate centers on whether the key metric should be output, jobs, or diversified domestic capacity.
Rare earth resources vs processing bottlenecks
- Several posts note rare earths are geologically common but economically hard to concentrate and separate, especially the heavier elements.
- The real chokepoint is chemical separation and processing, where China has dominant capacity.
- Startups and projects in the US and allies are mentioned, but many are small, slow‑moving, or financially shaky. Prior Chinese price flooding and bankruptcies are cited as a warning.
Policy, environment, and capitalism
- Stringent US regulations, NIMBYism, and unpredictable government actions are blamed for discouraging long‑horizon industrial investment.
- Others emphasize that all mining is environmentally destructive, so communities resist it regardless of commodity.
- Some see the outcome as “capitalism at its finest”: short‑term profit, externalized risks, and strategic vulnerability; others argue markets and global supply chains mostly worked, and only “bad actors” and shocks break them.