7 ms·

As a European I feel increasingly concerned about the influence of US in our recent trading decisions. The sense of an alliance feels somewhat imbalanced to say

As a European I feel increasingly concerned about the influence of US in our recent trading decisions. The sense of an alliance feels somewhat imbalanced to say the least. Interestingly whereas we have an advanced hardware industry we’re so far behind on leading software solutions that I doubt there will be any change to this balance any time soon. I guess software is eating the world...

yorwba 7y ago
That hardware usually ships with software provided by the manufacturer, so I'm not sure Europe really is behind on "leading software solutions". Software that isn't aimed at mass-market user-facing applications is still software.
tinus_hn 7y ago
It’s not like this is new, except with this government subtle diplomacy has been replaced with loud buffoonery, which makes this kind of manipulation slightly more obvious.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
  The is quite obviously an increase not just in buffoonery, but the basic, mercantilistic strategy. That's why this adminstration is bailing out to the tune of four times what the financial crisis cost, year. And farmers even get to keep that money.
sremani 7y ago
American Security guarantees do not come for free. Feeling constrained? then raise an Army and a Navy worth fielding and fighting Russians with out American assistance.
- the-dude 7y ago
  Why would we fight the Russians?
  - wffurr 7y ago
    Some people are still stuck in the Cold War.
    - cies 7y ago
      > Some people Some countries. Propaganda is hard to undo. See how people believe capitalism equates 1-on-1 with "free market" and think that communism means they cannot have personal belongings. Lol.
  - sremani 7y ago
    Because Russians want to move their borders to Carpathians to secure their borders given their dwindling demographics (since you can protect will lesser numbers). this is not anything to do with Cold war -- it is natural state of survival. One thing East Europeans get and West Europeans are clueless is the Russian Expansionism. The immediate prescription of half-wits is "Cold War". I did not make the North European Plains flat.. do not blame me.
    - NicoJuicy 7y ago
      Fun facts: - Europe destroyed the USSR without war. - Putin gets more resistance protests in Russia because of common sanctions - Gazprom can't sell with profit within Russia, they need Europe - Russia invests a lot of percentage of their GDP on military. But it's still nothing compared to Europe ( russia vs europe military spend: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=russia+vs+europe+military+spend https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=russia+vs+europe+milit... ). Remember, Europe isn't even spending 2% - Without Ukraine, Russia can't even use their naval fleet. That's why they are being aggressive. The sanctions of being aggressive are hurting them, but cutting off oil to Europe would hurt them a lot more. - Europe has never been so close to Moscow. They are more scared than you imagine - Russia has way more borders to defend than any other country. That's why they are willing to get run over by China. Their relationship will fail sooner or later. China doesn't invest in Russia despite longtime promises. Their relationship will hold untill Putin realizes there is not much to gain or till China doesn't need them anymore. Russia needs China more ( because of borders ) than the other way around. China also wants more security at it's borders, but it's less of a requirement. - Russia's and Turkeys relationship is also not that stable. It was because of one man that they talked again, by the use of a special Turkish expression that said: sorry, but not that sorry. Their relationship could hold untill one of both actually tries to improve relations with Europe, not happening soon though. If Europe would want to hurt Russia, they only need to heavily subsidize renewable resources, that would hurt max. 5% of Russia's GDP. No war required and don't bite the hand that feeds you ;)
- cies 7y ago
  Or create a new NATO that does not repeatedly exclude the Russians[1]. And could also hold a rule not to invade other countries (yes looking at you US). https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/fact-russia-pitched-the-idea-joining-nato-1954-18737 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/fact-russia-pitch...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    > Or create a new NATO that does not repeatedly exclude the Russians[1]. It seems like accepting Soviet/Russian proposal would have had the effect of 1) limiting the criticism of Soviet human rights abuses and 2) weakening the ability of democratic western countries to resist aggression by the authoritarian Soviets. I think it was the right call for NATO to reject this proposal. If it had been accepted, maybe we'd still have the Soviet Union around in 2020. From your link: > Molotov wrote. “The USSR joining the North Atlantic Pact simultaneously with the conclusion of a General European Agreement on Collective Security in Europe would also undermine plans for the creation of the European Defense Community and the remilitarization of West Germany.” > But Molotov did foresee problems in the event the Soviet Union became a NATO member. NATO would likely insist on democratic institutions while the Soviet Union considered the Westphalian concept of sovereignty sacrosanct. “If the question of the USSR joining it became a practical proposition, it would be necessary to raise the issue of all participants in the agreement undertaking a commitment (in the form of a joint declaration, for example) on the inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of states and respect for the principles of state independence and sovereignty,” Molotov wrote.
  - Zigurd 7y ago
    To "not repeatedly exclude the Russians" is premature. The Russians have invaded a European ally of the US. There is a path to Russia becoming a welcomed part of Europe and that path leads out of Ukraine.
    - cies 7y ago
- NicoJuicy 7y ago
  Europe easily outspends Russia in military investments. 287$ billion for Europe, 70$ for Russia in 2015 ( russia vs europe military spend: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=russia+vs+europe+military+spend https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=russia+vs+europe+milit... ) So, I don't know where your opinion comes from. But I think you could be better informed ;) Ps. I do think we should buy less US and spend more European. Eg. The F-35 is a joke currently, considering the costs.
  - rb808 7y ago
    I'm very sympathetic to the European view, but it was pretty disappointing to see Europeans forces do very little in Yugoslavian civil wars, Libya, Ukraine.
    - NicoJuicy 7y ago
      Europe invests in army, but it isn't a global military peace-keeper. It was/is ? actually a role that America tries to play for a long time. You already mention 3 countries. You are forgetting Georgia and a lot of other countries. Europe is a democracy and tries to influence with trade, not war. We do not force western opinions that much as America does. PS. I'm aware of Europe's history, but we live in the present. The EU is still young ( 1999 was the Euro ) and people seem to forget this all the time. I'm pretty sure that almost everyone who reads this will be older.
  - sykick 7y ago
    Collectively Europe outspends Russia in military investments. However, there is quite a bit of duplication in the individual European armies that make a straight comparison misleading. I suggest that military spending is not an accurate enough indicator of relative strength. Defense spending alone is meaningless if there is not an accompanying ability/willingness to project power. Russia is certainly not shy about projecting it's power and European countries have been when it comes to Russia. Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia certainly don't feel their security would be guaranteed in the absence of the United States being in NATO. Thanks to a successful Russian campaign to undermine confidence in the United States increasingly U.S. security guarantees are becoming less reliable. The shift to a multi-polar world has begun. Will European governments rise to the challenge?
est31 7y ago
TBH I'm glad it's not sold off. Europe has barely any large world leading companies in the digital sector. ASML is one of those world leaders. As for your american influence point, I'd certainly prefer if a strong EU council would block the sale instead of our transatlantic partners, but EU council can't even prevent OBOR in central europe...
- joshuaissac 7y ago
  How does preventing ASML from selling products to Chinese customers help it stay a world leader? A strong EU council would not block such sales.
  - mtnGoat 7y ago
    if no one can sell to them, the Chinese market is a moot point. Sometimes national security interests supersede a single darling companies bottomline. Plus, considering the Chinese track record of stealing technology, if that machine goes to China, ASML wont be the only one making it in a couple years.
- yorwba 7y ago
  The article is not about ASML getting sold, but about ASML selling (or rather, not selling) their product to customers in China.
  - tomp 7y ago
    We've learned in the past few years that Chinese will unscrupulously reverse engineer and/or steal any technology they can.
    - yorwba 7y ago
      The article says that ASML keeps selling earlier-generation equipment. Apparently, that can't be reverse-engineered and/or stolen as easily. (Or maybe just buying it is cheaper than going through all that hassle.)
  - 7y ago
baybal2 7y ago
I don't think that US even hides the fact that they made Wassenaar in order to keep their allies in line, and clip their wings on the techno-economic front. For example, when US was enthusiastic selling military equipment to China, not a single US company was ever denied a license, at the same time, US made everything to deny that for its allies.
meddlepal 7y ago
Maybe if Europe had a powerful military and wasn't dependent on the US for its defense then it could actually tell the US to go pound sand. But that's expensive and instead you guys get to shovel your money into social programs knowing if push comes to shove we are gonna help out. The situation in Europe is entirely self-created.
emn13 7y ago
This software imbalance is partially created by the fundamental inequalities contract+IP law creates. Since it grants not just remuneration for the creative, but also control, it's really, really easy to abuse economies of scale, and software is one big capitalist failure in that regard - it's not competitiive at all; one barrier to entry and network effect after the other. And whereas we by now have e.g. laws that allow transferring (say) a telephone number from one provider to the next; we do not yet have similar protections for the digital equivalents. Want to transfer your facebook account - as in the live account, connections & address & all, not the old data - to a new provider? Good luck with that (frankly, even the data isn't transferable, because the export format isn't an commonly used standard). Want to replace your gmail account with something else? Or, to play on recent events - want to transfer your .org registration to some place not being defrauded by ICANN insiders? All of that's hopeless. People sometimes claim there are technical difficulties here, but while those are real - they're not the cause for all this lock in. If the alternative to account transferability were bankruptcy, you can bet the big players would have this solved in about next to no time at all; but as it is - the incentives are to suppress competition and leverage the ill-gotten gains from being an early moving and having access to a large, single-language market. This is also why I'm not so sure china's rise is actually a bad thing - even for the US. The US economy is essentially stagnant; there needs to be a shake-up rather than resting on laurels. IP law currently is less of an incentive to create, and more theft of the commons - the benefits to the private interests are completely out of whack with the costs imposed on society. A country that won't entirely bow to the absurdities of IP law might inspire others for entirely selfish reasons to follow suit - and that might eventually cause the IP oligopoly to crack, and inject more actual dynamism and creativity. Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting china is being nice or anything - it's just that if we're lucky the collateral damage may fall for once in a beneficial direction. Of course, we might not be so lucky, but hey... If Europe really wants to compete, it should take a look around and adopt a similar less protective stance. France's tax is the wrong direction - instead of taxing the giants, we should break their market power, and prioritize things like flexibility to reassign a facebook account over the trademark holders right to keep the facebook name in house. Copyright should be restrained to FRAND principles, and e.g. not be a way to prevent a competitor from competing (i.e. the oracle vs google api fight) - and perhaps changed fundamentally to discourage rent-seeking where the value of a copyright lies to a significant extent in the network effect, not the actual content (which is pretty often the case, e.g. for shared cultural history like music too). The deck is fundamentally and anti-competitively stacked; there' little chance of fighting via innovation when there's no way to compete even with innovations. Obviously, anti-competitive tendencies are just as strong in Europe or China as they are in the US. But given the self-interest in breaking the US IP-backed rent-seekers, and the coinciding (and politically acknowledged) threat of democracy-undermining social bubbles there's a chance for a least some baby-steps towards change.
cdiddy2 7y ago
It feels like the US and China are in an undeclared cold war and the US is trying to draw lines to see who is on which side. If you resist using Huawei for example you are more likely on the US side of the fence. Europe hasn't reached the same level of awareness(paranoia?) that the US has yet.
- president 7y ago
  The cold war has been happening for a while now and has largely been waged by China through "Unrestricted Warfare" [1]. The free world can only win if allies stick together. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare
skissane 7y ago
> Interestingly whereas we have an advanced hardware industry we’re so far behind on leading software solutions that I doubt there will be any change to this balance any time soon. I guess software is eating the world... SAP?

yorwba 7y ago

That hardware usually ships with software provided by the manufacturer, so I'm not sure Europe really is behind on "leading software solutions". Software that isn't aimed at mass-market user-facing applications is still software.

tinus_hn 7y ago

It’s not like this is new, except with this government subtle diplomacy has been replaced with loud buffoonery, which makes this kind of manipulation slightly more obvious.

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
The is quite obviously an increase not just in buffoonery, but the basic, mercantilistic strategy. That's why this adminstration is bailing out to the tune of four times what the financial crisis cost, year. And farmers even get to keep that money.

sremani 7y ago

American Security guarantees do not come for free. Feeling constrained? then raise an Army and a Navy worth fielding and fighting Russians with out American assistance.

the-dude 7y ago
Why would we fight the Russians?
- wffurr 7y ago
  Some people are still stuck in the Cold War.
  - cies 7y ago
    > Some people Some countries. Propaganda is hard to undo. See how people believe capitalism equates 1-on-1 with "free market" and think that communism means they cannot have personal belongings. Lol.
- sremani 7y ago
  Because Russians want to move their borders to Carpathians to secure their borders given their dwindling demographics (since you can protect will lesser numbers). this is not anything to do with Cold war -- it is natural state of survival. One thing East Europeans get and West Europeans are clueless is the Russian Expansionism. The immediate prescription of half-wits is "Cold War". I did not make the North European Plains flat.. do not blame me.
  - NicoJuicy 7y ago
    Fun facts: - Europe destroyed the USSR without war. - Putin gets more resistance protests in Russia because of common sanctions - Gazprom can't sell with profit within Russia, they need Europe - Russia invests a lot of percentage of their GDP on military. But it's still nothing compared to Europe ( russia vs europe military spend: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=russia+vs+europe+military+spend https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=russia+vs+europe+milit... ). Remember, Europe isn't even spending 2% - Without Ukraine, Russia can't even use their naval fleet. That's why they are being aggressive. The sanctions of being aggressive are hurting them, but cutting off oil to Europe would hurt them a lot more. - Europe has never been so close to Moscow. They are more scared than you imagine - Russia has way more borders to defend than any other country. That's why they are willing to get run over by China. Their relationship will fail sooner or later. China doesn't invest in Russia despite longtime promises. Their relationship will hold untill Putin realizes there is not much to gain or till China doesn't need them anymore. Russia needs China more ( because of borders ) than the other way around. China also wants more security at it's borders, but it's less of a requirement. - Russia's and Turkeys relationship is also not that stable. It was because of one man that they talked again, by the use of a special Turkish expression that said: sorry, but not that sorry. Their relationship could hold untill one of both actually tries to improve relations with Europe, not happening soon though. If Europe would want to hurt Russia, they only need to heavily subsidize renewable resources, that would hurt max. 5% of Russia's GDP. No war required and don't bite the hand that feeds you ;)
cies 7y ago
Or create a new NATO that does not repeatedly exclude the Russians[1]. And could also hold a rule not to invade other countries (yes looking at you US). https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/fact-russia-pitched-the-idea-joining-nato-1954-18737 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/fact-russia-pitch...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > Or create a new NATO that does not repeatedly exclude the Russians[1]. It seems like accepting Soviet/Russian proposal would have had the effect of 1) limiting the criticism of Soviet human rights abuses and 2) weakening the ability of democratic western countries to resist aggression by the authoritarian Soviets. I think it was the right call for NATO to reject this proposal. If it had been accepted, maybe we'd still have the Soviet Union around in 2020. From your link: > Molotov wrote. “The USSR joining the North Atlantic Pact simultaneously with the conclusion of a General European Agreement on Collective Security in Europe would also undermine plans for the creation of the European Defense Community and the remilitarization of West Germany.” > But Molotov did foresee problems in the event the Soviet Union became a NATO member. NATO would likely insist on democratic institutions while the Soviet Union considered the Westphalian concept of sovereignty sacrosanct. “If the question of the USSR joining it became a practical proposition, it would be necessary to raise the issue of all participants in the agreement undertaking a commitment (in the form of a joint declaration, for example) on the inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of states and respect for the principles of state independence and sovereignty,” Molotov wrote.
- Zigurd 7y ago
  To "not repeatedly exclude the Russians" is premature. The Russians have invaded a European ally of the US. There is a path to Russia becoming a welcomed part of Europe and that path leads out of Ukraine.
  - cies 7y ago
NicoJuicy 7y ago
Europe easily outspends Russia in military investments. 287$ billion for Europe, 70$ for Russia in 2015 ( russia vs europe military spend: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=russia+vs+europe+military+spend https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=russia+vs+europe+milit... ) So, I don't know where your opinion comes from. But I think you could be better informed ;) Ps. I do think we should buy less US and spend more European. Eg. The F-35 is a joke currently, considering the costs.
- rb808 7y ago
  I'm very sympathetic to the European view, but it was pretty disappointing to see Europeans forces do very little in Yugoslavian civil wars, Libya, Ukraine.
  - NicoJuicy 7y ago
    Europe invests in army, but it isn't a global military peace-keeper. It was/is ? actually a role that America tries to play for a long time. You already mention 3 countries. You are forgetting Georgia and a lot of other countries. Europe is a democracy and tries to influence with trade, not war. We do not force western opinions that much as America does. PS. I'm aware of Europe's history, but we live in the present. The EU is still young ( 1999 was the Euro ) and people seem to forget this all the time. I'm pretty sure that almost everyone who reads this will be older.
- sykick 7y ago
  Collectively Europe outspends Russia in military investments. However, there is quite a bit of duplication in the individual European armies that make a straight comparison misleading. I suggest that military spending is not an accurate enough indicator of relative strength. Defense spending alone is meaningless if there is not an accompanying ability/willingness to project power. Russia is certainly not shy about projecting it's power and European countries have been when it comes to Russia. Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia certainly don't feel their security would be guaranteed in the absence of the United States being in NATO. Thanks to a successful Russian campaign to undermine confidence in the United States increasingly U.S. security guarantees are becoming less reliable. The shift to a multi-polar world has begun. Will European governments rise to the challenge?

est31 7y ago

TBH I'm glad it's not sold off. Europe has barely any large world leading companies in the digital sector. ASML is one of those world leaders. As for your american influence point, I'd certainly prefer if a strong EU council would block the sale instead of our transatlantic partners, but EU council can't even prevent OBOR in central europe...

joshuaissac 7y ago
How does preventing ASML from selling products to Chinese customers help it stay a world leader? A strong EU council would not block such sales.
- mtnGoat 7y ago
  if no one can sell to them, the Chinese market is a moot point. Sometimes national security interests supersede a single darling companies bottomline. Plus, considering the Chinese track record of stealing technology, if that machine goes to China, ASML wont be the only one making it in a couple years.
yorwba 7y ago
The article is not about ASML getting sold, but about ASML selling (or rather, not selling) their product to customers in China.
- tomp 7y ago
  We've learned in the past few years that Chinese will unscrupulously reverse engineer and/or steal any technology they can.
  - yorwba 7y ago
    The article says that ASML keeps selling earlier-generation equipment. Apparently, that can't be reverse-engineered and/or stolen as easily. (Or maybe just buying it is cheaper than going through all that hassle.)
- 7y ago

baybal2 7y ago

I don't think that US even hides the fact that they made Wassenaar in order to keep their allies in line, and clip their wings on the techno-economic front. For example, when US was enthusiastic selling military equipment to China, not a single US company was ever denied a license, at the same time, US made everything to deny that for its allies.

meddlepal 7y ago

Maybe if Europe had a powerful military and wasn't dependent on the US for its defense then it could actually tell the US to go pound sand. But that's expensive and instead you guys get to shovel your money into social programs knowing if push comes to shove we are gonna help out. The situation in Europe is entirely self-created.

emn13 7y ago

This software imbalance is partially created by the fundamental inequalities contract+IP law creates. Since it grants not just remuneration for the creative, but also control, it's really, really easy to abuse economies of scale, and software is one big capitalist failure in that regard - it's not competitiive at all; one barrier to entry and network effect after the other. And whereas we by now have e.g. laws that allow transferring (say) a telephone number from one provider to the next; we do not yet have similar protections for the digital equivalents. Want to transfer your facebook account - as in the live account, connections & address & all, not the old data - to a new provider? Good luck with that (frankly, even the data isn't transferable, because the export format isn't an commonly used standard). Want to replace your gmail account with something else? Or, to play on recent events - want to transfer your .org registration to some place not being defrauded by ICANN insiders? All of that's hopeless. People sometimes claim there are technical difficulties here, but while those are real - they're not the cause for all this lock in. If the alternative to account transferability were bankruptcy, you can bet the big players would have this solved in about next to no time at all; but as it is - the incentives are to suppress competition and leverage the ill-gotten gains from being an early moving and having access to a large, single-language market. This is also why I'm not so sure china's rise is actually a bad thing - even for the US. The US economy is essentially stagnant; there needs to be a shake-up rather than resting on laurels. IP law currently is less of an incentive to create, and more theft of the commons - the benefits to the private interests are completely out of whack with the costs imposed on society. A country that won't entirely bow to the absurdities of IP law might inspire others for entirely selfish reasons to follow suit - and that might eventually cause the IP oligopoly to crack, and inject more actual dynamism and creativity. Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting china is being nice or anything - it's just that if we're lucky the collateral damage may fall for once in a beneficial direction. Of course, we might not be so lucky, but hey... If Europe really wants to compete, it should take a look around and adopt a similar less protective stance. France's tax is the wrong direction - instead of taxing the giants, we should break their market power, and prioritize things like flexibility to reassign a facebook account over the trademark holders right to keep the facebook name in house. Copyright should be restrained to FRAND principles, and e.g. not be a way to prevent a competitor from competing (i.e. the oracle vs google api fight) - and perhaps changed fundamentally to discourage rent-seeking where the value of a copyright lies to a significant extent in the network effect, not the actual content (which is pretty often the case, e.g. for shared cultural history like music too). The deck is fundamentally and anti-competitively stacked; there' little chance of fighting via innovation when there's no way to compete even with innovations. Obviously, anti-competitive tendencies are just as strong in Europe or China as they are in the US. But given the self-interest in breaking the US IP-backed rent-seekers, and the coinciding (and politically acknowledged) threat of democracy-undermining social bubbles there's a chance for a least some baby-steps towards change.

cdiddy2 7y ago

It feels like the US and China are in an undeclared cold war and the US is trying to draw lines to see who is on which side. If you resist using Huawei for example you are more likely on the US side of the fence. Europe hasn't reached the same level of awareness(paranoia?) that the US has yet.

president 7y ago
The cold war has been happening for a while now and has largely been waged by China through "Unrestricted Warfare" [1]. The free world can only win if allies stick together. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare

skissane 7y ago

> Interestingly whereas we have an advanced hardware industry we’re so far behind on leading software solutions that I doubt there will be any change to this balance any time soon. I guess software is eating the world... SAP?