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

RISC-V Foundation moving to Switzerland over trade curb fears

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–289 of 289 posts

Re: RISC-V Foundation moving to Switzerland over trade curb fears

#281

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

lliamander wrote: post #262
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as the cost of hiring domestic labor in developed countries go up, companies begin to off-shore labor as soon as they are able. Productivity of labor is also much higher in developed countries. What matters is comparative advantage . Even from a strictly economic point of view, it is often better for rich countries to off-shore a lot of low-level manufacturing. That decreases prices for manufactured goods in rich c…

Government imposed costs on labor don't necessarily scale proportionally with productivity. It's possible that those costs can price even highly productive labor out of the market. Furthermore, at least some of the people affected by the displacement of manufacturing jobs in developed countries do not have higher productivity. The opioid crisis in the US is to some extent an example of this. I know of blue collar com…

> Government imposed costs on labor don't necessarily scale proportionally with productivity.

Not necessarily, but they correlate very strongly. It's the rich countries that tend to have strong labor protections, mandatory pension schemes, high healthcare costs, etc.

> at least some of the people affected by the displacement of manufacturing jobs in developed countries do not have higher productivity.

Some of them don't, but overall, developed countries have moved on to higher value-added sectors. Moving large numbers of American workers into things like mass hand-assembly of smartphones would not make economic sense.

> That doesn't mean these communities could not adapt to the changing economic landscape

Government could much more strongly redistribute the overall gains from world trade to those who lose out to trade. That would make a lot of sense, though it would go against the right-wing economic thinking that has dominated American politics since Reagan.

Re: RISC-V Foundation moving to Switzerland over trade curb fears

#282

Post by wayoutthere »

riversflow wrote: post #203
wayoutthere wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are such things as universal human rights, and China is absolute violation of them. You mean the ones that the US routinely violates for "terrorists" and "criminals"? China uses the exact same rhetoric for the people whose rights it violates. The situation with the Uyghurs mirrors a lot of the tactics used in the 70s by American police against black Americans under the guise of the "war on drugs" (hint: our p…

>What else could we have done? We could have engaged with the Japanese in the Pacific and let Europe duke it out and weaken themselves to nothing. Then rolled into Europe with tanks and taken over the whole world? Seriously. I'm not a historian, but I'm pretty sure we could have taken a very different route in WWII. If we really lacked morality, why didn't we just take over the World after WWII, or force the countrie…

> If we really lacked morality, why didn't we just take over the World after WWII, or force the countries we helped out into terrible economic deals like China is doing in Africa.

We didn't do both of those? That's news to me, because I thought that's what the Cold War was about. We just learned from Europe's colonial failures and allowed the countries to remain nominally politically autonomous while being economically bound to the US. The only thing that stopped us was the USSR, and it really only delayed the eventual US takeover by about 40 years.

> The Marshall plan was charitable.

It absolutely was not. It was designed to prevent nationalism from taking hold by making economic conditions in the defeated nations tolerable to the populace and to make those countries economically dependent on the US. It also led to former global powers Germany and Japan becoming proxy states of the US -- they are still occupied by US forces today. But it wasn't about charity by any means, it was a response to the lesson we learned from WWI that if you leave the losers destitute, resentment and nationalism follow.

Re: RISC-V Foundation moving to Switzerland over trade curb fears

#283

Post by jacobush »

linuxftw wrote: post #252
jacobush wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq.

But is that the norm? Cuba, Panama, Syria, Egypt, Iraq v Iran, Ukraine, Libya, Yemen, Somalia. The US takes sides all over the planet; Sometimes the US backs a 'state' and sometimes the US backs 'rebels.'

I meant, it's not exactly unprecedented for them to invade. I know they do a lot of the other stuff too.

Re: RISC-V Foundation moving to Switzerland over trade curb fears

#284

Post by lliamander »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #281
lliamander wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government imposed costs on labor don't necessarily scale proportionally with productivity. It's possible that those costs can price even highly productive labor out of the market. Furthermore, at least some of the people affected by the displacement of manufacturing jobs in developed countries do not have higher productivity. The opioid crisis in the US is to some extent an example of this. I know of blue collar com…

> Government imposed costs on labor don't necessarily scale proportionally with productivity. Not necessarily, but they correlate very strongly. It's the rich countries that tend to have strong labor protections, mandatory pension schemes, high healthcare costs, etc. > at least some of the people affected by the displacement of manufacturing jobs in developed countries do not have higher productivity. Some of them do…

> Not necessarily, but they correlate very strongly. It's the rich countries that tend to have strong labor protections, mandatory pension schemes, high healthcare costs, etc.

Obviously they correlate. The question is whether such labor regulations run ahead of labor productivity and inadvertently price labor out of the global market place. It's certainly not a given that labor regulations are proportional.

If it's not proportional, you either need to roll back some of those regulations or enact protectionist measures (tariffs, etc.) to enable fair competition.

It's not just labor regulations either. Environmental regulations also play a role. While I agree with having environmental regulations, if they are too stringent, then the result is that resource extraction moves countries without any protections.

> Some of them don't, but overall, developed countries have moved on to higher value-added sectors.

Those "left behind" could be a fairly large number. Democratic societies need to balance the interests of all of their citizens.

> Moving large numbers of American workers into things like mass hand-assembly of smartphones would not make economic sense.

If those large numbers of Americans are otherwise unemployed, or even working in low-skill service jobs, then moving them into smartphone manufacturing absolutely makes sense.

> Government could much more strongly redistribute the overall gains from world trade to those who lose out to trade. That would make a lot of sense, though it would go against the right-wing economic thinking that has dominated American politics since Reagan.

We are already redistributing to those who lose out on trade. I don't think more redistribution is what they want. My impression is that they would rather have jobs. Indeed, it makes much more economic (and psychological) sense to have as much of your population engaged in productive occupations as possible.

Re: RISC-V Foundation moving to Switzerland over trade curb fears

#285

Post by Abishek_Muthian »

krowfromthewall wrote: post #275
Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None needs to, it's opensource. They're moving to protect its freedom.

I think the term used for Hardware is Open Access, not Open Source

Not necessarily.

RISC-V Foundation just calls it 'open ISA' and Wikipedia states as 'RISC-V is an open-source hardware instruction set architecture'.

Re: RISC-V Foundation moving to Switzerland over trade curb fears

#287

Post by my123 »

FailEEStudent wrote: post #265
my123 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.yahoo.com/uk-chip-designer-arm-complying-u-rule... They resumed after the ban was kinda temporarily suspended... but there's a risk.

Well, not really. RISC-V is open-source so export controls don't apply so it seems to be more of a theoretical risk right now. https://www.ucop.edu/ethics-compliance-audit-services/compli... As for ARM, they initially stopped shipments to Huawei (it was an internal email that got leaked) but since it used less than 25% US-origin technology, US export controls don't apply and ARM could ship it

It's more complex than that, Cortex-A76 for example was designed by ARM's team in Austin, TX...

Re: RISC-V Foundation moving to Switzerland over trade curb fears

#288

Post by kortilla »

kazagistar wrote: post #89
knolax wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's referring to UBI.

UBI also isn't money for votes, its money regardless of votes. I can vote for UBI and lose more in taxes then I gain, and I can vote against it and still benefit. That sounds like about as non corrupt as it gets.

The funny thing is that you’ve also described exactly how tax breaks and deregulation for industries works. Google got massive benefits of Trump being president despite not donating to him.

A politician promising tax breaks for an industry is no different than a politician promising tax breaks for low income people.

Re: RISC-V Foundation moving to Switzerland over trade curb fears

#289

Post by ClumsyPilot »

microtherion wrote: post #176
pgeorgi wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case Switzerland seems to be a pretty good choice: compulsory military service, difficult terrain, nuclear power plants (and with them the infrastructure to build the bomb)

Yeah, that's what we LIKE the others to think. Realistically, our armed forces are at a strength of about 140K soldiers right now (pretty sure that's not a state secret). The parts of the terrain that are actually inhabited are not particularly forbidding (let them build their RISC processors in a hut nestled beside an 8500ft mountain pass. Don't forget to bring popcorn as you watch them). And nuclear power plants ma…

Nuclear powerplant is a strength, not a weakness. Unless you are getting attacked by an army made up entirely of suicide bombers, they will avoid the reactors like the plague. No-one needs another Chernobyl.
Post reply on HN