151–160 of 230 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot sell certain service to china. That is not fair.
That’s true for all countries though in some capacity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you're wrong but... Good luck convincing the average consumer (voter) to do without for a while and then pay more after that. They'll lynch you if they can't get the latest iTurd for 499.99 plus tax. Also, as long as the CCP run China, they'll be stronger than the west (consumerism and short-termism and Chinese abuses of them aren't just US issues). We need them to democratise, consumer domestically and…
Wet markets is a too general/vague. Wet markets exist are all over the world with similar setup like the one in China.
Maybe it's better to go even vaguer though: "food hygiene standards so low they keep causing pandemics".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is this internal resistance theory in China?
China has finite resources to throw at this problem and their track record so far is less than stellar. There is a lot of concern that pursuing this now is wasting resources better put to use elsewhere. But now the nationalists will be able to point to this and say 'see, we were right all along, now we need to make up for lost time' and then they'll demand even more resources. Which is interesting because it probably…
This December '19 CGTN (I know, I know) article[0] says 16%
“China currently produces over 16 percent of silicon chips. To compete for semiconductor leadership and make its economic relationship with emerging economies easier, China plans to produce 70 percent of all semiconductors it uses by 2025.”
And this March 2020 Daexu Consulting article[1] pegs China's semiconductor consumption at ~60% (!) of the world's total, but notes “However, domestic Chinese manufacturers are still only capable of meeting approximately 30 percent of their own demand.” ~60%÷10×3 = ~18% which jibes with that 16% back there.
What's your source for 6% ?
[0] https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-12-17/China-s-semiconductor-...
[1] https://daxueconsulting.com/chinas-semiconductor-industry/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TSMC's fab is in Taiwan, not PRC. Given the critical nature of semiconductors, if China invaded Taiwan it's hard to see the US not getting involved. TSMC is Taiwan's largest company.
> if China invaded Taiwan it's hard to see the US not getting involved. It's pretty much impossible to see the US getting involved. The UN doesn't recognize Taiwan as an independent country, so China would just be exercising their authority over a chinese company, just like they do with Huawei, Lenovo, and many others. NATO couldn't help either, because the US is not being militarily attacked by this. And well, the U…
Taiwan has a vibrant democracy and is highly regarded internationally. If China invades Taiwan, the resulting coalition will look more like the 2001 invasion of Afganistan in Operation Enduring Freedom [1], with United States and other NATO members attacking military assets on China's mainland to neutralize the invasion.
The risk of even a small scale nuclear exchange is huge, and so is the risk it will escalate into a Third World War with billions dead.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_Operation_Endu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is the question of the long term effect of policies like even just threatening to block major Chinese actors thanks to doubtful instruments (the US is basically the only power that attempts and manages to rule the world by claiming and effectively constructing jurisdiction on everything that touches a US dollar, or any kind of tech that has even just minor relationship with the US). Meanwhile the China has alre…
Those actors exist only because China blocks US movies in their theaters to 10 a year(!!). US movie industry creates so-called joint movies with the only goal to avoid these quotas. That's how Chinese capital suddenly got access to US movie companies, Chinese actors start appearing in US movies. It's a pretty much mafia move and has nothing to do with fair trade. Somehow Korea managed to create best movie of the year…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This won't kill Huawei at all, and instead of manufacturing chips with TSMC, won't they'll just switch their HiSilicon Kirin chip manufacturing to SMICs' 14nm process? I know it's no longer useful to compare process node sizes between companies anymore, but for what it's worth Intel is still stuck on 14nm and they're still considered by many a competitive chip-making titan. Also remember when United States pulled a s…
> his won't kill Huawei at all The goal isn't to kill Huawei... it's to make sure that Huawei 5G tech is delayed by 1 or 2 years. Banning their already-designed chips from shipping is a good way to delay them by a year or two. Most of the USA doesn't even have 5G deployed yet, and the US is hoping local manufacturers will get the local market as well as lots of the world market.
https://media.defense.gov/2019/Apr/03/2002109302/-1/-1/0/DIB...
TLDR: US spectrum allocation forces US 5G suppliers to design products primarily for the mmWave portion of the spectrum, which suffers from more technical problems such than the sub-6 GHz spectrum that Chinese products are using. The reason why the US didn't allocate more sub-6 GHz spectrum is because those frequencies are used by the US military.
To preface, firstly - I am a supporter of free global trade and greater collaboration between countries to maximize the benefit of each other. The problem starts when there is a massive asymmetry in the trade. China has completely blocked US services from Google to Uber, and gladly accepts manufacturing investment - Tesla Shanghai factory, Intel's Chengdu factory, etc. because the CCP knows that they will gain tremen…
What you've described is simply - unfair. Another extremely unfair thing is different employment & environmental standards. If an EU company opens a Chinese factory just because they can make people work more hours and can pollute the environment more, I don't really see that as a "globalization benefit", but rather as "unlawful competition" which results in a race to the bottom (other EU/US companies being forced to open polluting exploiting factories abroad to compete on price).
That's why I strongly support tariffs on imported products, unless foreign companies/factories conform to strict standards and allow strict (and random) inspection that they do conform to said standards.
To preface, firstly - I am a supporter of free global trade and greater collaboration between countries to maximize the benefit of each other. The problem starts when there is a massive asymmetry in the trade. China has completely blocked US services from Google to Uber, and gladly accepts manufacturing investment - Tesla Shanghai factory, Intel's Chengdu factory, etc. because the CCP knows that they will gain tremen…
I'm not supporter of free trade, I'm supporter of fair trade. What you've described is simply - unfair. Another extremely unfair thing is different employment & environmental standards. If an EU company opens a Chinese factory just because they can make people work more hours and can pollute the environment more, I don't really see that as a "globalization benefit", but rather as "unlawful competition" which results…
Consider Mongolia, perhaps they want to match EU employment standards but can't afford do. What are they suppose to do?
Suppose a democracy decided on different employment standards, should EU ban imports from US due to EU having higher standards of employee and environmental protection? How big does the difference have to be?
Does your free trade "fairness" account for the advantages US gets from being a global center of finance?
For disadvantages Vietnam has from being a recent colony and having a devastating war?
Does a country with loads of natural resources, or elderly population, or struck by natural disaster change the calculus?
Is this a robust rule you would like to see implemented, or is it just justifying current politics?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those actors exist only because China blocks US movies in their theaters to 10 a year(!!). US movie industry creates so-called joint movies with the only goal to avoid these quotas. That's how Chinese capital suddenly got access to US movie companies, Chinese actors start appearing in US movies. It's a pretty much mafia move and has nothing to do with fair trade. Somehow Korea managed to create best movie of the year…
Korea just has a different mafia-style rule in the form of chaebol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait a minute... You're pretending like trade is only "fair" if selling happens in both directions. Doesn't that fly directly in the face of what trade means? You buy something, but you get value in return. That's why it's not called "donation". If the thing you bought is not valuable to you then why did you buy it in the first place? Also, there is all this talk about "forced" tech transfers, but nobody forced US co…
You cannot sell certain service to china. That is not fair.
Further consider the advantage US has from being the center of global finance, and having many generations of wealth accumation compared to India and China being recent colonies and having recent devastating wars.
Is that trade policy still unfair taking those variables in account