China plans to ban exports of rare earth magnet tech • Hacker News Board

Re: China plans to ban exports of rare earth magnet tech

#571

Post by ramblenode » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 7:11 PM UTC

jeswin wrote: post #352

ramblenode wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't play nice with dictatorships in the hope that your long term economic interests will be aligned to the point that the other party will be forced to continue to play nice. This is a false equivalence of democracy = partner. The US has been happy to trade with friendly dictatorships (e.g. Saudi Arabia) and has itself threatened, overthrown, or interefered in democratic and popular governments (e.g. Chile) t…

Saudis will never be a military threat to the democratic order the way China can be. That's a key difference.

What is "the democratic order"?

Since the end of WWII, the US has overthrown at least four democratic governments (more than China) and funded numerous authoritarian governments that were/are US-aligned. To much of the world outside the north Atlantic states the "democratic order" is viewed a lot more cynically. Especially ask someone from Latin America what they think of this.

Saudi Arabia was the key force that reverted the democratization of Bahrain and in general is a block for democratization in the Arabian Peninsula. That you don't think they are a threat to democracy belies what your "democratic order" really is: US hegemony.

Re: China plans to ban exports of rare earth magnet tech

#572

Post by zirgs » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 7:16 PM UTC

Herval_freire wrote: post #361

sinoue wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracies aren’t beholden to the ego of an authoritarian. Free trade for free countries, and a tyrant tax for authoritarian regimes should be the norm if we want human centered capitalism. https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2023

[flagged]

The USA also got rid of Trump peacefully. The Belarussians tried to get rid of Lukashenko and failed. And now their territory is being used to commit war crimes against Ukrainian civilians.

In democracies voters can fix their mistakes without risking their life and freedom.

Re: China plans to ban exports of rare earth magnet tech

#573

Post by richardw » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 7:22 PM UTC

Maursault wrote: post #171

richardw wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Own more parts of the tech chip industry it doesn’t already? It would instantly have even more massive leverage internationally.

> Own more parts of the tech chip industry it doesn’t already? It would instantly have even more massive leverage internationally. Actually, it would gain China only anything other than this. If China were to invade Taiwan, the most-advanced chip factory in the world would be rendered “not operable,” TSMC Chair Mark Liu said[1] And "non operability" might be the least of TSMC's worries.[2] [1] https://www.cnbc.com/20…

Those are possibilities. The only guarantee world be that China now had Taiwan. The very fact those articles exist prove why China wants Taiwan, which was the question.

A week in, china says “ok who wants chips?” And the world world help get everything rolling again, because we need things Taiwan makes in aggregate more than Taiwan does. There are no other options. We also need things China makes.

Re: China plans to ban exports of rare earth magnet tech

#574

Post by Retric » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 8:30 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #555

somenameforme wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average gross trade of just raw oil products is somewhere in the $1 trillion ballpark, total trade overall several times that. It doesn't really matter much either way, as it's the "value" of oil that matters, not the price. When you are able to lock a door that everybody wants in, your key is priceless. The value of oil doesn't spike, its price does - primarily due to OPEC manipulation or yet another US Mideast…

Annual numbers are irrelevant due to the concept of velocity of money. You can use the same physical 20$ dollar bill to buy a soda several times over a year. You hand it to the 7-11 on Monday, they take it to the bank on Tuesday, the bank puts it into their ATM on Wednesday, you get out of the ATM on Thursday, and then take it back to that same 7-11 on Friday. Digital currency can cycle the same way just faster. Mexi…

PS: The nonsense included in the second half ignores the feedback loops from the balance of trade.

Anytime your pet economic theory results in some asset spiraling to infinite value it’s inevitably wrong. There’s always a point where people say no and do something else because they simply can’t spend infinite money on anything. Instead there’s always some factor not included in your model that moderates the impact you simply aren’t including it.

Re: China plans to ban exports of rare earth magnet tech

#575

Post by DiogenesKynikos » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 8:39 PM UTC

botanical wrote: post #541

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That people constantly raise, "What about the Uyghurs?" in conversations about the US and China constantly amazes me. After 20 years of constant war in the Middle East, including the illegal invasion of Iraq (consequence: several hundred thousand deaths), the overthrow of the Libyan government (consequence: a decade of civil war and a complete collapse of living standards), and the two-decade-long occupation of Afgha…

That invasion was "war"; which I am and was against. The Chinese government is repressing their own citizens. So why downplay the subjugation and genocide of the Uyghurs? (And I'm not American)

The "Uyghur genocide" has a death toll of zero, even according to the people calling it a "genocide." Words like "genocide" shouldn't be thrown around in bad faith.

I don't know what's more incredible: that anyone actually bought the "genocide" allegations, or how quickly the media has forgotten about it and moved on to the next hot-button China issue, Taiwan.

Re: China plans to ban exports of rare earth magnet tech

#576

Post by DiogenesKynikos » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 8:43 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #532

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article you've linked to explains that Taiwan makes nearly the same claims as the PRC in the South China Sea. In fact, the famous "dashed-line" claims in the South China Sea were originally made by the Republic of China, before it was defeated by the Communists. This is a map from 1947, showing the ROC's eleven-dash line: [0]. The only difference that I know of between the claims of the ROC and the PRC is that th…

> Taiwan makes nearly the same claims as the PRC in the South China Sea Taiwan doesn’t assert the claim [1]. There is sensitivity around explicitly abandoning it, as “changing the ROC’s historical claims would indicate—especially to Beijing—that the island democracy was abandoning its historical political identity and moving towards an inherently Taiwanese national identity, or even independence” [2]. To the degree T…

Taiwan not only asserts the claim, but actually occupies much more valuable islands than the PRC does. Like the PRC, Taiwan rejected the Philippines' claims and refused to recognize the arbitration body's decision or legitimacy.

Tsai Ing-Wen doesn't want to look like she's aligning herself with China on this issue, but this is long-standing ROC policy, going back to before the PRC was even founded. It's not something the PRC invented.

Re: China plans to ban exports of rare earth magnet tech

#577

Post by DiogenesKynikos » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 8:45 PM UTC

Symbiote wrote: post #229

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Chinese government does, at present, strongly favor the status quo. However, it's becoming increasingly clear that the US is shifting away from the One China policy. That shift is deeply alarming the Chinese government. There doesn't seem to be anyone in American politics who is capable of pressing the breaks, slowing down the drive towards confrontation, and reengaging in real diplomacy with China. In the end, t…

So if China invades Taiwan, it's Americas fault really? Ridiculous.

If the US deliberately takes steps intended to back China into a corner, with the only options being humiliation or war, then yes, it will be the US' fault.

The US has to come to grips with the fact that its power is limited, and that it must seek accommodation with other powers. If it doesn't come to this realization, we're all in for a very bad time.

Re: China plans to ban exports of rare earth magnet tech

#578

Post by DiogenesKynikos » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 9:13 PM UTC

another_story wrote: post #553

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of international law, the distinction you're drawing between China and the PRC is irrelevant. Legally speaking, Taiwan was recognized as part of China. The fact that there was a revolution in China does not change that, legally speaking. If such a principle were to be accepted, that a country's territory is called into question every time there's a revolution, it would open a Pandora's box. Recognizing Taiwa…

According to whose international law? The distinction is at the heart of the issue depending which country you ask.

There is no legal distinction between the PRC and China. The PRC is China on the international stage.

As far as I know, no country makes a distinction between China and the state that runs it. There is a handful of countries in the world that consider the ROC (i.e., Taiwan) to be the true government of China - countries such as the Vatican City and the Marshall Islands. As I understand it, the Vatican still recognizes the ROC because that's a negotiating chip it can play in its dispute with the PRC over how bishops are named in China.

Re: China plans to ban exports of rare earth magnet tech

#579

Post by sirsinsalot » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 10:10 PM UTC

beebmam wrote: post #560

sirsinsalot wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incompetence, greed and moralistic propaganda sure can masquerade as a functioning democracy.

Is your claim that the US is not a functioning democracy? Would you be willing to offer definitions of what you mean by "functioning" and "democracy"? Many people use the word "democracy" when they mean "democratic republic".

I read your other replies, and disliked those too. So no, I will not be offering anything more because I do not care about what you think enough to do so.

Re: China plans to ban exports of rare earth magnet tech

#580

Post by zapdrive » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 10:47 PM UTC

rnk wrote: post #430

zapdrive wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the unprecedented indictment and arrest of an ex-president on trumped up and statutorily expired charges, how far is the US from a dictatorship? We already know about the rampant mass censorship, thanks to Twitter files expose, militarisation of police and accumulation of all wealth by a few corporates. The only thing left for a clear path towards dictatorship was persecution of political opponents.

I haven't heard any republicans upset about the indictment claim that Trump would never do such a thing as bribe someone to keep quiet and then file deliberately misleading tax reports, and lie on his taxes. Everyone, even his supporters thinks he does things like that. So mull that over. They are just mad it was brought to a court of law. I do wish the more serious charges had been filed first. The reason it was unp…

> and then on top of all the other things organized a rebellion against the next president's election.

That is not what Trump was indicted for. It's like saying my neighbour should be fined for throwing trash in his yard because he killed his wife. Both things are totally unrelated.

> The reason it was unprecedented was because previous presidents hadn't committed crimes like that

Almost every presidential campaign (including Hillary Clinton's) has done campaign funds misuse. But again, Trump is not being indicted for giving money to Daniels from campain funds (which is totally legal, believe it or not!), he is being indicted for mislabeling it as legal fees.