upvote
Asking this question only a handful of years after a global pandemic...

If the next pandemic is 50% deadly, not being able to make gloves is surely the canary in the coal mine proving we wouldn't be able to make any other PPE.

And no country can rely on another if it's do or die. Other blocs will keep to themselves.

reply
As pointed out earlier, there is also rotation of a stockpile of gloves instead of manufacturing which reduces costs and solves the same issues.

Even things made in America were in short supply during the pandemic because workers were hard to come by as well. A factory isn’t any good if half the people to run it are sick, but it doesn’t take special training to hand out boxes of gloves.

reply
And in the midst of a start-stop petrochemical supply crisis.
reply
Those who do not learn from history... probably don't make gloves.
reply
It's amazing how much those spreadsheet heads know nothing about how the actual world works
reply
Doing basic math makes someone a "spreadsheet head"? If the "actual world" wanted American-made gloves then this cash injection from the government would've resulted in a boom in glove manufacturing here, no?

I always see catastrophizing and autarkist-coded takes like this which imply the US is a house of cards because we don't manufacture everything under the sun at all times. You have to realize that preparing for a doomsday scenario like 50% fatality rate pandemic has a cost that someone foots the bill for. Even in 2020 with a buffoon running the country, we still reacted very quickly and developed multiple vaccines to combat a novel virus (yes, the response was bungled in other ways but I digress)... people, markets, etc. are adaptable and we will figure it out.

reply
You gotta optimize everything for the market man! It's magic! Everything will work out if we only make number go up!

Who cares about silly stuff like health emergencies, the climate catastrophe or war. Number must go up!

reply
correction: the number must go up FASTER. if it just keeps going up same as yesterday, we will lose investors
reply
You don't need to optimise for the market. The market is the optimising machine. Get in its way with slow regulators or subsidies or bailouts and you get all the problems.
reply
Markets optimize for the current gradient, not for the local maxima

Markets will make you climb a hill ignoring it ends on a cliff end

reply
Sounds like a local maximum to me. Did you maybe mean a global maximum?
reply
Why would this even be so. It's not magic it's just people doing stupid people things often to maximize short term factors. It only gets long-term planning insofar as embedded agents do. One of the things agents do is use incentives to inspire behaviour that is conta individuals short term incentives to achieve behaviour that contributes to long-term success.

Not only are many individual agents aligned with short term interests they often either can't because they will be pushed out by short term thinkers or literally benefit from net harm to all. America mostly being composed of the rich not the masses voting with their wallets.

reply
Heh sure, it's great at optimizing.

The problem is it's an optimizing function for the rich getting richer, not for the good of society, not for reducing human suffering, not even, y'know, the survival of the human race.

reply
Redundancy is just waste wearing a trench coat etc etc.
reply
Well, for the most part this is actually true. Taking care of the exceptions is the hard part.

Also, "climate catastrophe" is not a thing.

reply
>Also, "climate catastrophe" is not a thing.

It takes a deep ideological commitment to close ones eyes to the reality in front of us.

Our planet is literally dying.

The oceans are boiling [0], marine life is dying [1]. Land close to the water will be land under water soon [2]. The ice caps are melting and setting free all sorts of diseases. [3]

Large parts of our planet on fire all the time now, here's one from Australia from this year [4], but I'm sure you've read about wildfires in Australia last year, California every year, Greece last year etc etc.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/09/profound...

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-026-03013-5

[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02299-w

[3] https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/could-microbes-l...

[4] https://phys.org/news/2026-01-australia-declares-state-disas...

reply
It is quite sad how doomerism has taken so many people. Our planet cannot "die", it is not a person. Take a deep breath!
reply
This feels like deliberately misunderstanding.

Obviously the planet won't die. The current biodiversity and the civilization depending on it however might.

In my country, streets are literally melting now, because they were never built for temperatures this high. We had 5000 heat deaths within 2 weeks. Temperatures never seen before in almost 250 years of consistent measurements of weather and temperature.

It's bad. And the data is available for everybody, including you, to see.

E.g. here, they've got tons of raw data available too (german): https://www.dwd.de/DE/leistungen/zeitreihen/zeitreihen.html

Don't know what you see there - but it sure does look like an exponential curve, doesn't it?

reply
It actually can die but more accurately it can also become far less amenable to human thriving and kill off the majority of other species both of which appear to be happening
reply
Sure, the planet can't die. But the people and animals on it can.

But I have a feeling you knew what I meant and are just being deliberately obtuse.

reply
Sometimes we hate incorrect usage of the word "literally" as much as we hate apathy to a billion people suffering.

The Gaia hypothesis is science fiction compared to climate catastrophe, which is real.

reply
Looks like most/all manufacturing happens in the SEA/China, so I can see the logic that it could be considered a military risk for it to not be manufactured/possibility to scale manufacturing in America.
reply
Someone already decided US should. The important question is whether 1B should have gotten the job done, and if not... is it matter of throwing good $$$ after bad $$$... or is it just bad sign 1B wasn't enough.
reply
I wonder if they can at least create a small scale NBR factory.
reply
Yeah, you should make stuff medical staff needs.
reply
Or maybe not start stupid wars but this is America we're talking so meh...
reply
Making them? Not in the least. But being capable of making them? It's a must, be it gloves, EVs, semis, or screws.
reply
It's all a question of price, based on the article. And not planning how much it takes to start up. In any case it's also not feasible to keep a plant on standby, just in case you need it one day.
reply
The USA can make anything if there’s money in it. Right now, I just don’t think there’s any.
reply
Also what the cost is. If the US really wants to reshore this sort of work then it will become materially poorer.
reply
The story says the US doesn't have the raw material(s): NBR. Not quite sure what that is.
reply
NBR = nitrile butadiene rubber, a synthetic rubber. Not really a raw material, as it's synthesized.
reply
With all the chemical industry already in the US, and $1B to throw at it, production capacity for the raw material couldn't be included?

It's not like you need a metric ton of it to produce a box of gloves.

reply
The issue is that domestic sources of NBR are few because of the type of petroleum extraction we do here. This makes the cost of NBR relatively high and consequently makes the gloves pricey compared to imported ones. We can definitely make.a glove but no one wants to buy them.
reply
The more important part is how to make people who ask this question a permanent pariahs?
reply
You think someone should be made a permanent pariah for suggesting medical gloves be manufactured in Malaysia or Thailand, rather than the US? Why?
reply
nah, you can always import from friendly nations like Denmark, Spain, Canada, Mexico..
reply
It should be able to. A country that can't, cannot hope to remain sovereign in anything but name, for long.
reply
Yes. Next question
reply
Why is it so simple? Instead of investing billions, perhaps a stockpile is a better strategy.
reply
That would be a good thing for you to research to build an understanding for the scale of what you are simplifying. Here's a start; just alone during a rather non-pandemic of 2020-2022 the USA alone used about 1.8 billion, with a B, gloves per week ... week.
reply
So 1 billion dollars buys about 8 billion gloves? Or about 4 weeks? So for 12 billion dollars that's a years slack?

I am not sure what you are getting at, continuously spending money on cost ineffective gloves just in case there is a problem sometime, including the upfront investment.

The scale of the storage? We have 6000 hospitals in the US. which would have to store about 2 million gloves a piece if you decentralized it. The storage space would be about 2 10x10x10 cubes in each location, probably varying dramatically by hospital size. Of course that is just proper hospitals, we have many many more medical facilities that use them. I don't see storage being a problem.

So what is the scale we are talking here? A complete 6 month supply would be half the cost, which still seems excessive. And this is a pandemic scenario we are talking about that uses a lot of gloves, not a national security concern where we would not have that much additional use.

reply
That’s brilliant - the government could pay every hospital to stockpile the annual needs for itself and any local clinics and they would just rotate through the stock and replenish as normal.
reply
deleted
reply
1-200% tariff applied at random if you don't.
reply
The US started the tariff game btw
reply
That is what I'm referring to.
reply