Not all that long ago the prevailing wisdom in economic circles was that where things were made hardly mattered. What really mattered, instead, was how much something cost.
But in recent years that has changed – and changed in a big way. Now countries around the world are racing to secure the minerals and materials they need to build the technologies of the future. Where something is made matters, in other words.
That, at least, was the gist of Rachel Reeves‘ policy of “securonomics”, unveiled here in Washington in a speech three years ago. Her point was that unless countries like Britain try to secure their supply of certain ingredients for making technology and energy, they will leave themselves more vulnerable to future crises.
Money latest: Fake texts scam warning
So you might have thought the chancellor would have been disappointed to have heard from Sky News that one of the central firms in Britain’s push to build a domestic critical minerals infrastructure, Pensana, had decided to scrap plans for a UK rare earths refinery, choosing instead to locate its plant in the US. However, the chancellor seemed quite sanguine when I caught up with her on the fringes of the International Monetary Fund’s annual meetings here in the US capital.
Indeed, she seemed almost reassured that the investment had gone to the US, another G7 nation, and pointed to a series of prospective investments in lithium and tin production elsewhere in the UK. She said that when it came to the trade deals done this year, “we are the envy of the world” – words that some might construe as hubris.
Even so, there is a deeper…
