Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

This could, and probably will, happen in a number of ways. They are blatantly expansionist; asserting control over HK was a mildly toxic event, but a move into Taiwan would be beyond reproach. They have a growing population that is overwhelmingly lower-class, by western standards. They hold a Tremendous amount of foreign-denominated debt (~$1.3T USD just from the USG) (holding a mortgage gives the bank power over you; holding sovereign debt gives the sovereign power over you), while issuing most of their debt internally, with very poor bookkeeping practices. They have very few notable Allies, and none won out of an emotion beside fear. The US has positioned itself for the next decades to aggressively improve at-home manufacturing & infrastructure.

These are just public statements by American executives; they mean nothing, and they don't represent the exertion any Real Power. No one is lying to themselves about China; but the shit hasn't hit the fan yet. Until it does, western companies extract and export Tremendous value from China, effectively weakening their natural resource reserves and domestic corporations while increasing their reliance on western technology. When that changes, western economies will take a hit; but China will be decimated.

China doesn't export any real culture (their top grossing film was a poorly made war propaganda film? lol Disney can puke out the sixteenth spiderman movie and make more. and No Way Home hasn't been released in China yet). They don't meaningfully export technology or intellectual property (ok: Tik Tok). One thing they do export: their children, to western universities. And you talk to many of these kids who have grown up in the west, and they don't want to leave. They buy houses here, build families, drink with their white, black, and brown friends, work in American companies... It's Just Better Here.

And sure; they export Influence; its the echoes of an untapped market with really cheap manufacturing. My western value systems says Intel should be more harsh with China; that they shouldn't mince words. But simultaneously, when speaking about global power dynamics: Why? Profiting from slave labor is horrible, but that's exactly what Intel is doing: Profiting. I wish they wouldn't, but doing so doesn't meaningfully make China stronger. If anything, it further striates their already overwhelmingly lower-class population; unrest can't just happen in authoritarian countries, it tends to.

And while all-out war is unlikely; if that happens, everyone will be decimated. We can drum all we want, but global military tech has react the status of Perfect Killing Machine. War, in the past, was a tool countries used to assert influence and escape dire economic situations. The tools have changed; you can't assert influence if there's no one left to have influence over, and your dire economic situation will just be made worse after coastal population center bombardment and grain field irradiation. We'll just kill each other off, and most war is rational somewhere in the reasoning matrix.

It's atrocity propaganda exaggerate by useful idiots, even if out of genuine ignorance. The perpetuator of the original allegation, Zenz, used the label of "coerced labor", which goes through the euphemism treadmill to become forced labor by state department and now slave labor by the even less informed, because that's how propaganda snowballs.

Labour transfer programs in XJ, like elsewhere in PRC are employment programs. Yes there's pressure by recruiters to fill roster. Or it could be part of parole / work release programs. And there may be exploitation, but that's statistically inevitable for a social program that employs 10s of millions from every region of PRC over decades. Also consider these programs are typically well compensated compared to west due to economic disparity of developed and underdeveloped regions in PRC. And they're contracts with limited duration measured in months.

Analogue example is work program that recruits from rural town /rust belt with zero prospects and average income of 20k and paying them 45k to do manufacturing in a more well developed state for a year. Or apply that to work/release for an inmate incarcerated on low level drug charges. Some of these placements are exploitative because capitalism. In aggregate the programs alleviate poverty and promote development. That's the tier of exploitation being misconstrued as slave labour with the XJ propaganda push.

If A cares enough about an issue and is willing to deal with the consequences and B does not then A wins and B loses.

Everyons is willing to commit something for a cause they care about. It could be as little as taking time to convince others by writing an article or a tweet, or as much as being able to commit violence for it and deal with the consequences.

One aspect of life, from negotiations to geopolitics to convince your opponent that A) you would be willing to pay a higher price than they are for your position B) you CAN pay that price.

In case of Intel v China, CCP has something to lose by banning Intel but they've demonstrated or at least convinced them and most other companies that they're willing to pay that price and CAN pay it (by the virtue of being the CCP and having absolute authority). A nation with less resources may not be able to convince a mega corp in order to get concessions.

So in this case if Americans care more about this issue they have to convince the Chinese that they're willing AND able to pay a higher price than they are.

Essentially: try to distinguish between information about facts - which is largely true - and the narration being built around it.

You are suggesting that the majority of low quality chips are manufactured outside of Taiwan. You have not defined your operational definitions for chip quality. You do not even have evidence on the quantity of chips.

In the absence of any data that would contradict this, we can reasonably assume revenue figures are a sensible proxy for quantity of chips.