Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The end of the world is just beginning for shipping

gcaptain.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 483 posts

Re: The end of the world is just beginning for shipping

#401

Post by jjtec »

causality0 wrote: post #356
Longlius wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not incorrect on that point. Huawei sources its SoCs from Taiwanese and American fabs, which is why the trade war has absolutely gutted their bottom line. HiSilicon licenses chip designs, adds their specific stuff on top of them, and has the chips fabbed by TSMC.

He's incorrect in that he thinks the destruction of the Taiwanese semiconductor industry during an invasion by the mainland would be a minor inconvenience for the US but an insurmountable obstacle for China.

Dude you are so incorrect here, its unbelievable. Why don't you go sit down in the corner before you hurt yourself

Re: The end of the world is just beginning for shipping

#402

Post by jjtec »

causality0 wrote: post #294
spaceman_2020 wrote: post #75

I’ve been following Zeihan since his first book. I’m yet to find a credible counter argument to his theses. And he’s being proven right at an alarming pace this year. So far this year we’ve had: - A land war in Europe - Food insecurity in the developing world - Breakdown of supply chains and shipping routes - Nation states resorting to seizing each other’s ships (see Greece-Iran issue recently). Everything that he ha…

What bothers me is the sheer mass of factually incorrect statements Zeihan makes that would be trivial to check if he bothered. Things like "China only makes the low-end computer chips, anything that's going into a cellphone or laptop is made in the USA"

What bothers me is you are obviously a chinese Shill

Re: The end of the world is just beginning for shipping

#403

Post by TapWaterBandit »

pphysch wrote: post #290
spaceman_2020 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can absolutely argue against this. It's called automation. You're viewing it from a myopic production-focused viewpoint. Whereas the problem is our consumption-led economic order and its reliant on adding an ever increasing number of consumers. Compared to young people: A) Machines do not consume goods and trinkets. Western economies are based on consumption, not production. B) Machines do not pay taxes, making…

> Western economies are based on consumption, not production. Hence their present downfall. > Machines do not pay taxes, making it harder and harder for the state to pay for the welfare of ageing populations. Taxes are a relic of the long-gone physical money era. Vulgar taxation is a legacy technology that provides more waste than utility in the 21st century. > Automation simply doesn't work for service-focused work.…

> Taxes are a relic of the long-gone physical money era. Vulgar taxation is a legacy technology that provides more waste than utility in the 21st century.

It isn't often I see really novel ideas on hacker news, but this is an interesting take. Will need to think about it more but definitely interesting to think about the best means of providing public goods etc and if the system we have does this.

Re: The end of the world is just beginning for shipping

#404

Post by taylodl »

hintymad wrote: post #338
taylodl wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only unpopular because it flies in the face of economics. You say you're fine paying $300 for a pair of shoes - but are you okay with your livelihood being making shoes? If you're capable of doing higher-value work then isn't it a "waste" for you to be doing lower-value work? The U.S. has invested trillions of dollars building an infrastructure that has led its citizens to being some of the best-educated and mos…

> but are you okay with your livelihood being making shoes? If you're capable of doing higher-value work then isn't it a "waste" for you to be doing lower-value work? This assumes that everyone can do the higher-value work per their standards, right? US is probably the most educated country in the world, while in the meantime we still have millions adults[1] who don't have college degree. We still have millions of ki…

That worries me, actually. Are we leaving a large group of people behind? Have we written them off because they're not able to do "high value" work and yet our life expenses in the U.S. are such that they're not economically viable for doing the "low value" work, either? Is living on public assistance really the best option? Or working in the gig economy? I don't have answers to these questions but I do think about these things.

Re: The end of the world is just beginning for shipping

#405

Post by syntheweave »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #75

I’ve been following Zeihan since his first book. I’m yet to find a credible counter argument to his theses. And he’s being proven right at an alarming pace this year. So far this year we’ve had: - A land war in Europe - Food insecurity in the developing world - Breakdown of supply chains and shipping routes - Nation states resorting to seizing each other’s ships (see Greece-Iran issue recently). Everything that he ha…

I went and got the latest book and started reading it right then and there.

It's crap.

Demography is powerful, yes, but the interpretation matters, and the premises here are of steady-state or linear extrapolation. There is no mention of technological disruption: all the criticism assumes linear progress, allowing analysis to proceed along the lines of resource shortage. This core assumption means the book is already wrong since the progress in key disruptive techs has actually followed exponential curves(see any Tony Seba lecture). If we have the AI and robotics to fill in 18-year old roles, we don't need actual 18 year olds.

It's a work of the moment in that it explains near-term problems reasonably well, while also being extremely wrong about anything more than a few years out because it can't imagine a world that gets weirder, when every big epochal shift has made the world weirder in the process of fending off Malthusian logic.

Re: The end of the world is just beginning for shipping

#406

Post by vba616 »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #75

I’ve been following Zeihan since his first book. I’m yet to find a credible counter argument to his theses. And he’s being proven right at an alarming pace this year. So far this year we’ve had: - A land war in Europe - Food insecurity in the developing world - Breakdown of supply chains and shipping routes - Nation states resorting to seizing each other’s ships (see Greece-Iran issue recently). Everything that he ha…

You are impressed that someone predicted a war in 2014, and it happened...?

I predict there will be a recession in the next 8 years! And another war!

I also predict there will be food insecurity in the developing world!

And bad things will happen to countries and ships, somewhere on the globe! Probably including Iran!

What do I expect from an expert prognosticator? Opinions with the potential to be wrong. Numbers or quantitative statements help a lot.

Re: The end of the world is just beginning for shipping

#407

Post by banamamma »

Is there any data that backs the claim that the US is "protecting" the world's seas? Like a list of incidents where the US navy intervened to protect vs the times other countries intervened?

Without that I suspect "protect" really means "control" the seas. And if that's true - why would one country losing control of the sea mean the end of the world? Also not convinced that that automatically implies any sort of instabillity.

Re: The end of the world is just beginning for shipping

#408

Post by hattmall »

tomp wrote: post #341
andi999 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was so clear, then tell me, why did putin wait for so long.

Because Trump threatened to strike back. Putin was afraid of Trump, but he knows that Biden has no spine. https://nypost.com/2022/02/22/trump-talks-threatening-putin-... > “If you move against Ukraine while I’m president,” Trump is said to have told the Russian leader, “I will hit Moscow.” > Putin reportedly scoffed, “No way,” leading Trump to say, “All those beautiful golden turrets will be blown up.”

People don't want to believe this because they hate Trump. But there's no denying he was unpredictable and that's not something you want from the most powerful man in the world if you are trying to destabilize the world. There's no way Putin invades with Trump in power.

Re: The end of the world is just beginning for shipping

#409

Post by seanp2k2 »

Schiendelman wrote: post #398
causality0 wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's incorrect in that he thinks the destruction of the Taiwanese semiconductor industry during an invasion by the mainland would be a minor inconvenience for the US but an insurmountable obstacle for China.

Why? The US has Intel and AMD, and increasingly TSMC employees. China can’t replace those fabs, they don’t have the knowledge. The US is already building new fabs.

https://www.shiphub.co/worlds-top-semiconductors-producers/

Re: The end of the world is just beginning for shipping

#410

Post by codefreeordie »

ajuc wrote: post #319
codefreeordie wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, for sure, having children stopped being net-economically-positive long ago -- though the degree to which it is net-economically-negative seems like it has kept increasing, as our expectations of an acceptable childhood keep growing.

I don't think going from 2.x kids per family to 1.x or even lower was mostly about money. It's about opportunity costs (and the resource that you must allocate between the alternatives is mostly time). To put it differently: in 80s your standard of living was X no matter if you had kids. Now if you have kids it's 2X and if you don't it's 5X (assuming the same effort). That's why giving people with kids enough money t…

This is really about economics. 100 years ago, having a kid produced more resources. 40 years ago, it was relatively close to neutral ("X no matter if you had kids"). Now, it's super strongly negative.
Post reply on HN