Packy McCormick reframes the urgent geopolitical scramble for supply chain independence not as a nationalist crusade, but as a fundamental economic necessity: you cannot design the future if you do not own the factory floor. The piece's most striking claim is that American innovation has hit a ceiling because it outsourced the "learning by doing" that only happens when manufacturing and design share the same physical space.
The Myth of Separation
McCormick opens with a deceptively simple observation about Westmag, a stealth company building motors in South San Francisco. He writes, "Manufacturing and design are inextricably linked. When you make things, you learn how to make them better." This argument cuts through the common political debate about tariffs or trade wars by focusing on the mechanics of innovation itself. The logic holds water: when a designer never sees the production line, they cannot optimize for reality, only for theory.
The author challenges the prevailing economic dogma that suggests America should stick to high-level design while letting others handle the heavy lifting. He notes that "maintaining design leadership without manufacturing leadership is not a coherent strategic position." This is a crucial pivot. It shifts the conversation from "buying American" as a moral imperative to "making American" as a survival strategy for tech giants.
"In the Electric Era, maintaining design leadership without manufacturing leadership is not a coherent strategic position, and one that gets less coherent the better you believe AI will get."
Critics might argue that this ignores the sheer scale advantage China has built over thirty years, suggesting that re-shoring is economically inefficient regardless of security concerns. However, McCormick anticipates this by pointing out that efficiency gains in a vacuum mean nothing without volume. As he puts it, "Motors are capped at 100% efficiency, so most improvements are incremental... but it turns out that doesn't matter at all if you don't make it and get it adopted at scale."
The Process Problem
The article dives deep into the technical realities of brushless DC motors, explaining that while the materials—copper, steel, neodymium—are simple, the assembly is a nightmare of tolerances. McCormick explains that "the process is annoyingly precise," requiring laminations stacked within a hair's breadth and magnets oriented to a fraction of a degree. This technical detail is vital because it explains why China won: not just through subsidies, but by accumulating a library of institutional knowledge that cannot be downloaded or bought instantly.
He draws a parallel to the history of the industry, noting how Japanese firms in the 1960s and 70s productized these motors as transistors got cheaper, creating a compounding advantage. "Over the past thirty years, they have made a lot of motors, and in the process, they have written a library of institutional knowledge." This historical context strengthens the argument that Westmag's strategy isn't to invent a new motor, but to rebuild the muscle memory of American manufacturing.
The author emphasizes that this is a "scale game," which America has struggled with recently. He quotes co-founder Jordan Sanders: "We are first focused on scale: scaling what works now and what is in demand now... we will drive this virtuous feedback loop of innovations." This focus on volume as the driver of quality, rather than the other way around, is a distinct departure from the boutique engineering culture that has dominated US tech.
"Actually building a lot of it is the only way to get good at building it. China's strength, which we are replicating, is building a lot of things and then improving it along the way."
The Path Forward
McCormick concludes by outlining a pragmatic path for Westmag: leverage the current geopolitical premium to kickstart demand, then use that volume to drive down costs until they can compete on pure system efficiency. This approach acknowledges that patriotism alone cannot sustain a business, but it can provide the runway needed to reach critical mass. He suggests that "if you place component manufacturing near product manufacturing, the whole machine spins faster."
This framing is particularly effective because it avoids the trap of isolationism while still advocating for domestic capacity. It recognizes that the goal isn't to make every single magnet in America, but to ensure that the capability exists and that the feedback loops between design and production remain unbroken. The article subtly references the "Smiling Curve" concept from related deep dives, illustrating how value has migrated away from manufacturing, only to argue that in an AI-driven future, that curve is flattening back toward the factory floor.
Bottom Line
McCormick's strongest contribution is dismantling the false dichotomy between high-tech design and low-tech manufacturing, proving they are now a single, inseparable loop. The argument's vulnerability lies in its reliance on private capital to solve a decades-long deficit in industrial capacity, but the strategic logic of "learning by doing" remains undeniable for anyone betting on the next generation of robotics and drones.