Well, and why would we expect them to take that into account?
Btw, there are good and (mostly) bad ways to do these interventions. Tariffs are especially bad.
A lot of the discussion of these measures also treats all foreigners the same. Eg in practice a chip being produced in eg Canada is virtually as good for national security as one produced in the US. But acts like the 'CHIPS and Science Act' don't see it that way.
The US industrialized itself with tariffs and deindustrialized itself by removing them.
Is it a benefit if that efficiency turns your industrialized economy into a financialized economy that can't manufacture enough bullets to fight a war that you start?
In classical capitalism, there aren't two or three monopolistic players that dominate each industry, there are thousands of companies competing with each other. And that competition brings costs down, so no outsourcing is needed.
Capitalism = private ownership of means of production
Socialism = collective ownership of means of production
Capitalist monopolies are privately owned. A monopoly is no less privately owned than a minor company in a sector with healthy competition, and there is nothing remotely collective about a monopoly. A lack of competition does not in any way mean that "the people" own the organization. Not theoretically, and not actually.
Collectively owned socialist enterprises are not necessarily free of competition. In fact, heated competition over quotas had a lot to do with many of socialism's worst blunders.
Competition does not remotely guarantee that costs are low by international standards either.
They are orthogonal; it is possible to have socialist corporatism, but there is nothing inherently socialist about corporatism (or inherently corporatist about socialism.)
Imo markets tend to have 2 trajectories. Either the market leader builds a moat that precludes competition (often through semi-illegal means).
Or the companies engange in fierce competition and the big players will either outspend or outproduce or straight up buy their competitors which tends to result in either monopolies or oligopolies with barely any competition.
This is when the enshittification begins.
That is why states that created capitalism like Dutch and British always had a strong comportment of fiscal-military state where the government made sure that they could defend their country and their trade.
The problem is that if somebody much larger then you comes along, this gets increasingly difficult. Specially if they are part of the same world and market as you. As Britain learned with the rise of Germany and far more so the US.
The US basically invited China, because they were concerned about the Soviets. This was smart in a struggle with the soviets. But unfortunately China was the much larger strategic danger all along.
The good thing is, that if China continues on along the same lines, the US will continue to do pretty well in a China dominated world. Just as Britain do in a US one. And as the Dutch did in a British one.
The question is, if China will behave the same or not in the long term given that they are not democratic and not even slightly germanic.
The reality is that a monopoly is incredibly hard to sustain without government. And even in the cases where something close to it can be created, they can seldomly really push up the price as much as they think.
Historically its governments creating the monopolies most of the time.
It kinda did. Large stagnant industries tend to collapse into monopolies. However, this was masked either by new more nimble companies pushing out the incumbents by utilizing newer technologies, or by industries fading away entirely.
Defining monopoly is pretty hard in the first place. Only Will Smith can play Will Smith. Or is he in a market against all black actors? Or all actors? Or is it he also competing against the NBA/NFL?
If a single company exist to provide some service in a small town, is that company a monopoly.
If a company dominates a market for a decade+, is that a monopoly? There is a question of time.
One can answers these question different ways. And even if they are monopoly, sometimes that is not a actually a problem.
There are certainty some cases where some monopoly exist and are harmful. Mostly those are created by governments. However one can certainty have harmful situation in a relatively free market as well.
But I think the argument that there was ever a case to be made that the Marxist idea of all companies merging in a single mega cooperation has never even been remotely true. And you have industries that are reasonably unregulated (in terms of market entry) and still have lots of competition.
So the facts are 100% for sure much more complex then Marx and those that claim 'Capitalism always leads to centralization' believe. Or at least if it does it operates at timescales that makes it unclear that we should act on their recommendations.
Often Standard Oil is the best example people can come up with and they are not even remotely close to taking over much outside of their specialty.
Of course the whole discussion gets even more complex once multiple government (and cultures, and geographies, and climates and so on) are involved and we aren't taking about a single unified market.
So corporations and consumers outsourced because quantity at price beat quality and strategic concerns.