351–360 of 593 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want my tax money filling the coffers of an American monopoly.
What market is Intel a monopoly in? They don't even have all of the x86 market. https://www.extremetech.com/computing/335650-amd-achieves-al...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was the main argument for global trade already in 1914. France was Germany's most important commercial partner, and vice-versa. All German rifles had stocks made from French walnut wood! All French locomotives had German-made tubing! This stupid mantra was repeated ad nauseam after 1991, too, with silly op-eds from Friedman and friends about how two countries with McDonald joints in both can't be at war and simi…
And in 1812 the UK was the US's biggest trading partner. And that created major tensions in the US, with New England almost threatening secession over it. But the war still happened.
Trade needs to be fair and mutually beneficial.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Increasing trade with Russia is a good strategy. No need to follow America to WW3 or a new cold war.
Selling off allies in eastern europe to Russia is a good strategy? That's a good way to start WW3, on Russian side...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This made me laugh. 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.
Furthermore, it is worth studying the Arab Spring and what the underlying causes were: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Causes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I don't totally disagree with you here. There's certainly something to be said about systems that make people happier than no system at all or the wrong system entirely, e.g. the soft power of surveillance being better than a total lack of enforcement of certain rules or heavy-handed and expensive policing efforts that don't work or make people any more free. That being said, I think there are limits to this philosop…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A connected world is not a guaranteed sufficient condition for peace. But that does not mean it's not a necessary condition for peace. One could argue that without economic interconnectivity, Europe could have fought WW1 much earlier, or would have had wars much more often.
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…
It's a deep area of research with conflicting results [1][2].
[1] https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.85...
[2] https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oRbfdWw4ozUC&oi=...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is very important for national stability. A highly-interconnected global economy is arguably better at securing international stability.
That was the main argument for global trade already in 1914. France was Germany's most important commercial partner, and vice-versa. All German rifles had stocks made from French walnut wood! All French locomotives had German-made tubing! This stupid mantra was repeated ad nauseam after 1991, too, with silly op-eds from Friedman and friends about how two countries with McDonald joints in both can't be at war and simi…
So that's an easy example of how trade helps keeps peace.
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.
Will it make much of a difference, though? Sure they can fabricate the chips, but a lot of the raw material needed will come from places like China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Competing with Intel is out of the question for any local chip company. But semiconductors is much much much more than high end CPUs. There’s totally a huge opportunity for local chip companies to grow. And having company like Intel may help, as people who work there will get a lot of know how that they can take to smaller local companies to help them grow.
> Competing with Intel is out of the question for any local chip company. Why? Intell lost the mobile, and is currently losing desktop/server. RISC-V is more promising each passing day. If India can do this, why can't Europe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31243674
Intel never really had the mobile market and was seemingly never particularly interested in it. They are currently heavily pressured by AMD and ARM based cpus both in the consumer and server markets.