341–350 of 593 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I talked to Chinese people about Taiwan. They are very emotional about it (anger and hate). Don’t expect China to act logical.
Please don't make such generalizations. The average Chinese person is no more responsible for Chinese foreign policy than the average American is for American foreign policy.
Investing in local chip fabs is long overdue. These are incredibly important for geopolitical stability and should be distributed world-wide. We've centralized too many fabs in too few places in the search for low cost.
ASML is in the Netherlands though. Edit: Yes ASML is obviously not a chip fab but they supply the machines that actually fabricate the chips.
Investing in local chip fabs is long overdue. These are incredibly important for geopolitical stability and should be distributed world-wide. We've centralized too many fabs in too few places in the search for low cost.
It is very important for national stability. A highly-interconnected global economy is arguably better at securing international stability.
In this case, you don't want to be dependent on one geopolitically unstable island. If there is a war, it won't be the EU's decision to start/stop it. You'd want China to be dependent on EU and vice versa, to make it costly to start a war. But if China has nothing to loose by attacking Taiwan and the West would loose all advanced electronics... This is not going to bring any kind of stability. You might only be forced to buy those chips from China, giving the potential aggressor even more leverage (and money)
Intel spent tens of billions on stock buybacks and now they're getting subsidies to build fabs. Why does the middle class taxpayer have to bail everyone out, with lower living standards due to taxation and inflation.
It's about national security. A fab is necessary for national security
Earlier quoted context omitted.
more interconnectedness = less % chance of war not absolute 0 % chance of war
> more interconnectedness = less % chance of war What evidence do you have to make this claim? A simple thought experiment proves the counter. Let's say there is a population on one island, and another population on another island, and these populations have no way of reaching each other or even knowing of each others existence. These not-connected populations are guaranteed not to go to war. However, give one of the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I ultimately believe you're correct (along with open borders and travel) I wish there were more rigorous proofs that this were the case. I think about the line in West Wing: "Free trade is essential for human rights...the end of that sentence is 'we hope because nothing else has worked.' ...Chinese political prisoners are going to be sewing soccer balls with their teeth whether we sell them cheeseburgers or not…
Human rights is more than just political rights or speech. Hundreds of millions of Chinese lifted out of poverty is a huge win for human rights. When you're poor, you're not free. Having grown up with dirty streets and beggars, you can't possibly imagine how big a deal it is for me to see my hometown transforming into a modern metropolis, and how my grandparents-in-law (in a different city, in a rural area) finaly ha…
That being said, I think there are limits to this philosophy. It's pretty clear by now that not everyone in China is getting a fair shake, to the extent that perhaps it is time for other countries to evaluate their relationships with the output of those in China who are experiencing something that goes beyond the pale in terms of human rights violations i.e. the Uyghur population and the work that they are being "voluntold" for as well as the "re-education" they are experiencing.
I think that for as much sense as it makes for China to do whatever it does, it makes sense for Western countries to do something about the obvious misalignment of values between the two groups. The West not accepting / becoming dependent on economic conditions that result from violations of their views on human rights or democracy is a very reasonable action to take from an ethical and moral standpoint, just as an example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
America is not part of Europe. No reason to spend European money supporting American companies.
European money for European manufacturing staffed exclusively with Europeans and making chips for European products used by Europeans in Europe. The question OP asked is why it matters to you that the company that owns the fab is not European? The local investment is what should matter, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world doesn't revolve around "America vs Russia". There are lots of other things going on. And if you are looking for a mass murderer, is there a bigger mass murderer than USA after 20 years of mass murder in the Middle East?
That would be the Middle East itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State To fight ISIS, it is mostly a joint effort of US + NATO + Allies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Joint_Task_Force_%E2%... . > The United States accounts for the vast majority of airstrikes (75–80%), with the remainder conducted by Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Jordan, Belgium, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the Uni…
Isis was a direct consequence of American invasion of Iraq. You can't do what America did in Fallujah and not expect some kind of blowback.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are dependent on and subservient to the US and its geopolitical interests. We see this right now with Germany self-sabotaging it's own economy and industrial power by cutting off cheap Russian energy at the direction of US policy interests (Nord Stream 2 was agreed upon for years between Russia and Germany but thwarted at every turn, sanctioned etc by US).
It was also hated by other EU countries: >President of the European Council Donald Tusk said that Nord Stream 2 is not in the EU's interests.[19] Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán have questioned the different treatment of Nord Stream 2 and South Stream projects.[19][20] Some claim that the project violates the long-term declared strategy of the EU to diversify its gas supp…
It was also opposed by Eastern Europeaners such as Tusk who (understandibly) dislike Russia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Serious question - How do you propose governments encourage companies to do what they want? Yes it’s a subsidy but it also seems like the government in this case is essentially buying a service. I guess Germany would hire people to build this factory directly rather than paying a foreign company to do it? Which I imagine would be more expensive if it’s even possible to do. Do you think there are better ways to do thi…
>Serious question - How do you propose governments encourage companies In some countries capitalism simply works the opposite way.