351–360 of 686 posts
People need to wake up to the fact that China being a potential market of >1B people is an illusion. This is particularly relevant for any tech company. Let me spell it out: Chinese companies are extensions of the state. They are tools of Chinese foreign and trade policy. What cooperation you think US companies provide the US government, it is nothing in comparison. The Chinese government will ensure that no Western…
People need to wake up to the fact that China being a potential market of >1B people is an illusion. This is particularly relevant for any tech company. Let me spell it out: Chinese companies are extensions of the state. They are tools of Chinese foreign and trade policy. What cooperation you think US companies provide the US government, it is nothing in comparison. The Chinese government will ensure that no Western…
Naive question here: why China is able to close its market to foreign companies? Same thing for trade sanctions on Iran which impacted European companies but not China (if I'm not wrong). Seems they don't play by the same rules as anybody else.
To be fair, Imperial China has a history of developing vassal states in its sphere of influence, so what goes around, comes around.
Main thing is that China used to have greater influence and I think the current generation of Chinese citizens see no reason why China shouldn’t be a superpower, even if they have to share it with the US.
People need to wake up to the fact that China being a potential market of >1B people is an illusion. This is particularly relevant for any tech company. Let me spell it out: Chinese companies are extensions of the state. They are tools of Chinese foreign and trade policy. What cooperation you think US companies provide the US government, it is nothing in comparison. The Chinese government will ensure that no Western…
Arm China had stellar financial results. Arm holding, with 49% share of the company, has significant upside to gain from the market.
And this fiasco is partly a misconduct of Mr. Wu, showing no signs of being directed by Chinese investors.
And partly because of Trump's tech ban, which obviously affect arm China's prospect.
And then this statement: > I believe the US government will at some point soon decide that any person born in mainland China is a security risk as far as working on anything national security related.
Even if Mr. Wu was directed by CCP, how can you extend that to all of Chinese immigrants? There are plenty of Chinese Americans who had misconduct inside China, and flee the country back to US to escape Chinese law (numerous corrupted officials of course are such examples) recently https://m.sohu.com/a/412302008_220095/?pvid=000115_3w_a are these people US spys to sabotage Chinese economy then? How ridiculous was that logic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Naive question here: why China is able to close its market to foreign companies? Same thing for trade sanctions on Iran which impacted European companies but not China (if I'm not wrong). Seems they don't play by the same rules as anybody else.
China can control its market without serious reprisal because there aren't any serious reprisals available that are palettable. As an individual country, blocking or tarrifing imports from China isn't very effective because it hurts consumers and industry that rely on importing products and raw materials/commodities/industrial inputs from China more than it hurts China who can often export to other countries instead.…
This isn't really true. If there is a tariff on importing iPhones from China, in the short term iPhones become more expensive by the amount of the tariff, but also the US taxpayer pays lower taxes for the same level of government services because the tariff money is going to the US government. So to US citizens in the short term it's net-zero.
In the longer term, Apple builds an iPhone factory in India or Mexico. The US iPhone customer doesn't even really notice the difference from this, but China obviously does.
> Blocking exports to China is tricky because one the one hand, China doesn't import too many things, but on the other hand, for those things they do import, they're a large portion of the global market, so a country that cuts off those exports will leave their exporters will a large surplus, often of perishable goods, that will be difficult to deal with.
Nobody really even wants to block exports to China. Gaining fair access to the Chinese market is kind of the point, and for things like soybeans or something like that, "fair access" mostly just means they're buying your products.
It's more complicated when you start talking about tech companies and censorship, because then it's about more than just "they're buying it from you."
Moreover, where export restrictions hurt isn't necessarily for things where they're paying a lot of money. It's for things they can't get elsewhere.
> Most western countries don't have much in the way of laws that could restrict foreign ownership of land or businesses except in exceptional cases.
That wouldn't be that hard to change. Especially for ownership of land, the change would be locally popular because it would make housing more affordable, and the foreign interests who would have to sell their holdings don't get a vote in US elections.
People need to wake up to the fact that China being a potential market of >1B people is an illusion. This is particularly relevant for any tech company. Let me spell it out: Chinese companies are extensions of the state. They are tools of Chinese foreign and trade policy. What cooperation you think US companies provide the US government, it is nothing in comparison. The Chinese government will ensure that no Western…
I suspect China doesn't really need western markets in the long term so denying access isn't all that powerful. Their population is the same as the entire OECD combined. They could become an entire "western developed economy" isolated within themselves plus a bunch of 3rd world allies.
Being from the West, we see things with West-Centric eyes. When, if we look more closely, we see that China alone has more customers than the whole of the West (Five-Eyes, Europe, Japan) combined.
The West is pretty much unimportant, relatively speaking, in the over-all scheme of things. A mere 20% of the world's customers.
As a whole, the world is reverting to the status-quo that existed prior to the 1400s: The world's big economies being in India and China, with Europe/Europeans being a quiet backwater.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Naive question here: why China is able to close its market to foreign companies? Same thing for trade sanctions on Iran which impacted European companies but not China (if I'm not wrong). Seems they don't play by the same rules as anybody else.
> why China is able to close its market to foreign companies? Why shouldn't they? It's their market. Do you propose we do like the British, which bomb them and opened it by force to have them buy opium? For perspecive, and to answer the "seems they don't play by the same rules as anybody else", part, the US has historically had tons of tarrifs on its own, it's how it got big - they only switched to "free trade" when…
China has twice the tariff rate of the US, *in addition* to directly stopping foreign companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure about that? It's the norm in Europe. E.g. you can't work for UK security services (MI5, MI6) unless one of your parents was also British, you lived in the UK for a while and you might be required to give up dual citizenship.
> Are you sure about that? It's the norm in Europe. E.g. you can't work for UK security services (MI5, MI6) unless one of your parents was also British, you lived in the UK for a while and you might be required to give up dual citizenship. I think it's actually similar for US security clearances, though not explicitly codified like that. IIRC, if you're a dual citizen, you have to renounce the non-American one. Appar…
The last U.S. administration quite clearly showed us that clearances mean utterly nothing and are a quickly bypasssble joke in the U.S.
People need to wake up to the fact that China being a potential market of >1B people is an illusion. This is particularly relevant for any tech company. Let me spell it out: Chinese companies are extensions of the state. They are tools of Chinese foreign and trade policy. What cooperation you think US companies provide the US government, it is nothing in comparison. The Chinese government will ensure that no Western…
We buy peace with China by maintaining strong economic codependence. There is a huge cost, but not necessarily one not worth paying. Economic isolation would mean war.
no need to worry about voters losing their jobs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As dylan522p is saying, it depends very heavily on the actual agreement. Which unfortunately isn't public and has historically been very different in each case so we can't even look at similar agreements for guidance. That being said, it wouldn't be totally out there for a clause in the agreement that doesn't allow export of chips with this IP, and that would probably be enforced as ITO judgements allowing seizing ch…
dylan522p says above: > Chips themselves can be sold, yes. The IP cannot be licensed to non Chinese based semi firms. I'd be astonished if licenses to Chinese SoC designers prevented products with those SoC's being sold outside China. So RockChip, Spreadtrum etc would be cut off from the rest of the world? Or forced to license separately with Arm UK for chips for products that are to be exported? Seems very unlikely.…
Or do nothing and look at their chips being turned back to sand as soon as they land in a western country.