591–600 of 668 posts
Some more context from a dutch news source[0]: The ministry of economic affairs intervened out of a fear that crucial technological skills and capacities will leave the Netherlands and Europe. The ministry stated in a press release[1] that there was a threat of a "knowledge leak" (w/e that means exactly) and a possible threat to the European economy. After this intervention the Dutch government can now stop or revers…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We got back slave labour and offshored manufacturing pollution. Personally, I'd rather pay extra for high quality goods made ethically than some planned obsolescence or plastic garbage.
> Personally, I'd rather pay extra for high quality goods made ethically than some planned obsolescence or plastic garbage. Nitpicking a little, but the Chinese also make high quality stuff. It is not advertised as much though.
Some more context from a dutch news source[0]: The ministry of economic affairs intervened out of a fear that crucial technological skills and capacities will leave the Netherlands and Europe. The ministry stated in a press release[1] that there was a threat of a "knowledge leak" (w/e that means exactly) and a possible threat to the European economy. After this intervention the Dutch government can now stop or revers…
So what just happened logistically? I assume this is an entirely independent Chinese company without some Dutch sponsor or something. That conforms to local regulations. But now The Dutch government says "we have this new power over you" and that is that. With the consequence presumably being export control on dutch tech, banning from their market, etc? Or were there any more hooks planted that make it easier to forc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a rather weak retort. Certain things like uranium and pharmaceuticals are pretty obviously strategic while other things like dog food are not.
Milk and yogurt certainly are, also bread, also lots of food stuff. As far as I know almost no country has gone isolationist on that (with a few exceptions, such as China, which is at least trying). One can win a grand war without access to uranium, but you need access to bread and milk if you don’t want to repeat Germany’s WW1 fate.
Which is why both US and Europe protect and subsidize those sectors to a fault.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> can now people like you appeal to free trade You're assuming too much and, along with others here, acting like you've been hurt. "Free trade" is the mantra of Western economists and politicians since the time of Adam Smith, and it's been a ruse since then too. Read him. > When China cannot compete with incumbents those protections also go up. They do, but not in the erratic manner, levels or timing we're observing…
>Adam Smith, and it's been a ruse since then too. Read him. You should read Keynes as the primary opposing side to US during Bretton Woods, with strong support from most bankers at the time. The WTO has no answer to structural imbalances nor was ever intended to resolve such a matter. The status quo you support is not grounded in economic literature than it is a incoherent mess that was created through political circ…
Don't blame China for this, they provided what they were asked to provide, blame those who "failed to discipline them years ago". Go to the beginning of this thread where I pointed out who tried to stop the trend.
> The status quo you support is not grounded in economic literature than it is a incoherent mess that was created through political circumstances.
The status quo is what reality is today. Punishing China has nothing to do with advancing the US economy, much less when it boils down to erratic tariffs motivated by speculation and crony business relations.
> The status quo you support is not grounded in economic literature than it is a incoherent mess that was created through political circumstances.
This is so rich that I have to correct it again, the hard way:
The economic literature is an incoherent mess that was created through political circumstances.
Keynes is no exception.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you use the word "Socialise" then the current trend of reactionary ill-informed is to assume "Communism". It's an argument I'm sick of having, but it's an argument that needs to be had.
> it's an argument I'm sick of having, but it's an argument that needs to be had OP [1] is the first person to make the argument that socialising anything implies communism in this thread. The entire shtick is a straw man. It doesn't need to be argued if it's only brought up by the side tearing it down. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45575045
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Entities the size of the US or the EU are capable of producing most or all strategically important products internally, and then trade still happens because not all products are strategically important. Or because e.g. people in the Northeast buy oil from Canada because it's closer to them than Texas, even if both countries have that industry.
> Entities the size of the US or the EU are capable of producing most or all strategically important products internally The US can internally produce: food staples, fossil fuels and nuclear fuel, most (but not all) industrial chemicals and construction material, defense systems and major military equipment, generic drugs and many medical devices. However, vulnerabilities exist in: semiconductors, rare earth minerals…
The US used to produce nearly all of those things and would benefit from having the industrial capacity to process rare earths even if some of the mining happens in Brazil or India or Australia.
> Lastly, what about the remaining 167 countries in the world (195 - US - EU)? 90% of the world's population live outside the US and EU.
They would then have the option to buy any of them from the US, the EU or China instead of having only one of those monopolize global production.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am sort of surprised we even have an arm of government quick and authoritative enough to be able to intervene here. I always assumed the government would just let any frogs boil.
I'm a bit surprised by this move as well... If only someone had done similar to protect the gutting of Sears and K-Mart, even if both companies made several years of bad decisions themselves, the way they were cleaned out is disgusting.
Reagan promised "deregulation" and "get government out of business" etc, and had a very clear mandate to execute, which he did, IMO to our detriment, by doing things like telling the FTC to just let companies do whatever, and outright not enforce anti-competitive laws if you couldn't show "consumer harm", which explicitly meant you had to show prices going up before you could prevent the monopoly from forming.
What did people expect?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where else will they buy EUV from?
Its China they will create their own EUV ecosystem, there are sources that keep track of Chinese developments and there's a lot of EUV related patents being rewarded within China. So i wouldn't be surprised if they will announce first initial set of EUV test runs this year or early next year as a cherry on top of their "Made in China 2025" cake.
2. It's quite possible you are right about Chinese EUV capabilities - I don't have a clue myself as I don't work for NSA or CIA. On the other hand it's one more very big challenge in a field of big challenges and despite what the CCP says Chinese resources are very far from infinite and the clock is ticking demographically.
3. A set of EUV test runs would not impress me to be honest - a full blown production line of EUV generated chips would. The issue doesn't seem to be in doing EUV, the issue is to build systems that can sustain quality at volume.