41–50 of 668 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just capitalism
This has nothing to do with capitalism. This is pure government intervention in a global market where other competing governments (China) are extremely interventionist already. Capitalism != Free Market
Some more context from a dutch news source[0]: The ministry of economic affairs intervened out of a fear that crucial technological skills and capacities will leave the Netherlands and Europe. The ministry stated in a press release[1] that there was a threat of a "knowledge leak" (w/e that means exactly) and a possible threat to the European economy. After this intervention the Dutch government can now stop or revers…
> For context, the law that allows this all to happen was passed in 1952 and has never before been used. Interesting parallel here with China recently invoking - for the first time - their own legislation from the 50's to ban rare earth exports for military uses.
Some more context from a dutch news source[0]: The ministry of economic affairs intervened out of a fear that crucial technological skills and capacities will leave the Netherlands and Europe. The ministry stated in a press release[1] that there was a threat of a "knowledge leak" (w/e that means exactly) and a possible threat to the European economy. After this intervention the Dutch government can now stop or revers…
> For context, the law that allows this all to happen was passed in 1952 and has never before been used. Interesting parallel here with China recently invoking - for the first time - their own legislation from the 50's to ban rare earth exports for military uses.
The 50% ownership by a sanctioned entity was a reality for a while, and was an issue as soon as the purchase. This didn't change recently. So, this action should have been part of the pre-purchase review (CFIUS in the US...I assume there is an equivalent in China). On the face of it, this all could have been avoided by having a non-sanctioned entity (including another random Chinese company) own enough of the company to get sanctioned entity ownership below 50%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For context, the law that allows this all to happen was passed in 1952 and has never before been used. Interesting parallel here with China recently invoking - for the first time - their own legislation from the 50's to ban rare earth exports for military uses.
How can you say what the minerals were actually used for though is the question I always have in these types of situations. There are multiple uses of the minerals. Since I've now gotten a literal boat load of the minerals from you, I can use those minerals on other things which now frees up my personal source of minerals on the things you didn't want them used in. In the spirit of the agreement, I'm in full complian…
It's ok. It's fine when the EU does it. It's only wrong and against capitalism when others do it. Like protectionism.
I think its fine to have national and strategic interests. China isn't someone that you can just trust, they are exporting to Russia on the sly and therefore supporting war in Europe because it suits them.
is it really on the sly though?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think its fine to have national and strategic interests. China isn't someone that you can just trust, they are exporting to Russia on the sly and therefore supporting war in Europe because it suits them.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Germany implemented something similar like this after China took over Kuka (industry leading robotics) and practically build an entire industry of robotics in China after that. And of course, the jobs disappeared from Germany.
Did they? As far as I know Kuka is still fully controlled by Midea.