Samsung boosts non-memory chip investment to $151B • Hacker News Board

Re: Samsung boosts non-memory chip investment to $151B

#161

Post by NicoJuicy » Mon, May 17, 2021, 10:49 AM UTC

vasac wrote: post #150

NicoJuicy wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are severely overestimating Russia's army and underestimating Europe's. Russia isn't even in the same league of spending power and the Soviet army of the past was way stronger. While Russia spends a lot of money on their army ( % wise), they don't have the resources to renew it. What's left is a lot of old gear and some renewed one. As a counter perspective, Ukraine would have made it's naval fleet completely unu…

Russia buys most of their arms from their own industry so while their military budget in $ is far smaller than the US they get more bang for the buck (or in their case ruble). So while they nominally spend ~$60B per year when accounted for PPP (purchasing power parity) that looks more like equivalent of $150B (or $200). Things are obviously more complex than this but it's obvious that while they spend similar $ amoun…

Oh indeed, I didn't saw reports about it being continued. Thanks

For why Ukraine is important, i once read this: https://www.ft.com/content/1f749b24-9f8c-11e3-b6c7-00144feab...

Which was what influenced my judgement about Ukraine and Russia's fleet.

Re: Samsung boosts non-memory chip investment to $151B

#162

Post by ericmay » Mon, May 17, 2021, 3:25 PM UTC

smhost wrote: post #154

pm90 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Korean unification is not impeded by the presence of US troops, but by the demands of the DPRK over the nature of what the unified state would look like; it seems unlikely that the current Regime would give up its power just like that. Remember that US troops were stationed in Berlin/ West Germany prior to German unification (i'll admit its not the exact same situation since the East German economy was relatively muc…

> Korean unification is not impeded by the presence of US troops, but by the demands of the DPRK over the nature of what the unified state would look like. The fact that the American military gets to decide what the Korean people want or what the reunification process will look like, is the single biggest factor hampering the peace process.

But as you know, that's not actually what's happening. If South Korea wanted they could kick the U.S. out and let North Korea come take over their government and be reunited. The U.S. would be very concerned about that, of course, but the American military is not really preventing this from happening. U.S. forces are in Korea for beneficial reasons to the U.S. and the West, but also at the behest of South Korea. Realistically, many people (from Trumpers to left-wingers) want U.S. forces out, albeit usually for different reasons, whereas the Korean government would prefer they stay in comparison.

Now, with that being said is American military presence an issue for North Korea? Yea definitely. But if the U.S. withdrew troops it's not like Korea would all of a sudden be reunited. There's a laundry list of issues that would need to be resolved. American military presence is just North Korea's go-to excuse because they seek to divide the South Korean and American alliance.

If North Korea wanted to, they could just open the borders, stop starving their people, and all that jazz. Why do they need to do all of that crap? Because 25,000 Americans are in South Korea? Yea ok.

There are actually evil people in the world that don't live in America. Many of them live in North Korea, happily starving people, raping women, and executing people for no good reason.

Re: Samsung boosts non-memory chip investment to $151B

#163

Post by mensetmanusman » Mon, May 17, 2021, 4:39 PM UTC

lazide wrote: post #141

mensetmanusman wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not as damaging as coal, which is fortunate for the clean energy transition. Solar is now the cheapest assuming we get grid scale storage(or, more likely, store excess solar as hydrogen fuel).

Most solar is now produced in China, at 71%+ as of 2019 (and only grown since then I imagine). If we’re talking national security, that is a concern too.

These panels might last 30 years, which is great! Also gives us time to consider strategies…

Re: Samsung boosts non-memory chip investment to $151B

#164

Post by FooBarWidget » Tue, May 18, 2021, 10:12 AM UTC

oblio wrote: post #134

FooBarWidget wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And just why would they do that? The only reason China supported North Korea historically is because they don't want US troops at their doorstep.

Puppet states, influence, a thorn in the Japanese side. Why would China need or want Tibet or Xinjiang? Remote regions without Han populations.

Are you willing to bet on this?

Re: Samsung boosts non-memory chip investment to $151B

#165

Post by oblio » Tue, May 18, 2021, 2:43 PM UTC

FooBarWidget wrote: post #164

oblio wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Puppet states, influence, a thorn in the Japanese side. Why would China need or want Tibet or Xinjiang? Remote regions without Han populations.

Are you willing to bet on this?

Possibly, but why?

Re: Samsung boosts non-memory chip investment to $151B

#166

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, May 18, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

lumost wrote: post #131

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US can, and absolutely will, restrict oil exports if prices start to skyrocket. That would cost US oil producers billions of dollars -- more than the price increase would cost US consumers. Which would only happen if oil producers had dramatically less political influence than they do now, i.e. if we stopped producing so much oil. But then there would be no reason to do it. > It wasn't even legal to export oil…

On a temporary basis this is true as the market is restricted. On a long term time horizon you would simply expect consolidation of global refineries into a new, more powerful monopoly.

Your argument is that by having greater competition, the result would be a monopoly?

Re: Samsung boosts non-memory chip investment to $151B

#167

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, May 18, 2021, 4:58 PM UTC

totalZero wrote: post #159

mushufasa wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

absolutely true. Since some people are questioning this in the comments: for those that want to do their own research, this is called 'The Law of One Price,' and it applies to other commodities where transportation and storage costs are low. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/law-one-price.asp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_one_price https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/ec... This has bee…

That is very theoretical. In practice, petroleum markets go to great pains to deal with transportation and storage. Look up "netback pricing" as a start. Crude is not an identical commodity in the sense that is assumed by the Law Of One Price. There are some crude specifications that certain refineries prefer not to process, either due to sulfur or viscosity or other characteristics for which the refinery may be ill…

> Arbitrage works worst when transactions are lossy, costly, delayed, and unique, as is the case in the petroleum market.

If you compare the petroleum market to the markets where those things are actually major factors, like the market for artwork, petroleum is an idealized commodity market. The fact that the price of transportation isn't literally zero and there are different well-defined grades of the commodity doesn't meaningfully change that. Transaction costs are never literally zero.

And what matters is the relative transaction costs. You have to ship the oil from the well to the refinery, but if the transportation to go 1500 miles from Texas to a refinery in New Jersey and the cost to go the same distance in the other direction to a refinery in Mexico are the same, there is no relative difference in transportation costs.

Re: Samsung boosts non-memory chip investment to $151B

#168

Post by FooBarWidget » Wed, May 19, 2021, 2:22 PM UTC

oblio wrote: post #165

FooBarWidget wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you willing to bet on this?

Possibly, but why?

Because it's easy to think cynically when nothing is at stake, when you don't have skin in the game. I bet $1000 that China won't help North Korea to invade South Korea. Bet ends 2030. You in?

Re: Samsung boosts non-memory chip investment to $151B

#169

Post by oblio » Wed, May 19, 2021, 7:15 PM UTC

FooBarWidget wrote: post #168

oblio wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly, but why?

Because it's easy to think cynically when nothing is at stake, when you don't have skin in the game. I bet $1000 that China won't help North Korea to invade South Korea. Bet ends 2030. You in?

I would be, but there's one condition: the US pulls out of any military alliance/support for South Korea.

Chine will obviously not risk another Korean War, there's nothing for them to gain. If South Korea loses US support, yup, I'll take that bet in a heartbeat.

Re: Samsung boosts non-memory chip investment to $151B

#170

Post by FooBarWidget » Sat, May 22, 2021, 9:10 AM UTC

oblio wrote: post #169

FooBarWidget wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's easy to think cynically when nothing is at stake, when you don't have skin in the game. I bet $1000 that China won't help North Korea to invade South Korea. Bet ends 2030. You in?

I would be, but there's one condition: the US pulls out of any military alliance/support for South Korea. Chine will obviously not risk another Korean War, there's nothing for them to gain. If South Korea loses US support, yup, I'll take that bet in a heartbeat.

Deal.