12 ms·

There's a big difference between receiving an amount of government subsidy, and the government funding almost everything with nearly no budget limits. The form

There's a big difference between receiving an amount of government subsidy, and the government funding almost everything with nearly no budget limits. The former is definitely true, though China is not the only country engaging in such a practice. The latter claim needs sources to back up. If you look at the Chinese chip industry, then you see that a lot of money comes from the private sector. Huawei, Xiaomi, etc are investing a ton of money in semiconductor companies. SMIC got a lot of funds through a stock market IPO. Clearly it's not all government money. There's also a big difference between investing in an industry with the goal of dominating the world and eliminating competition, vs the goal of becoming a sovereign equal. Why is it necessarily the former, and not the latter? The reason why the Chinese government invests in many sectors, is because they want to be independent instead of being at the mercy of foreign sanctions. If it weren't for that, they'd happily buy from foreign suppliers because that's cheaper than developing the technology themselves. There is another documented history: that of the US sanctioning China, preventing China from accessing all sorts of western technology. For example, the US denied China of space technology. So now, China has wholly self-developed space technology. China isn't selling space technology below production costs to kill competitors. China invested in this sector in order to safeguard their access to space. https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-china-collaboration-illegal-2015-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-china-collaboration-ill... The US forced TSMC to not supply to many Chinese companies, and TSMC isn't even a US company. The US is trying to kill the Chinese semiconductor industry, making it wholly reliant on foreign suppliers. For years, Chinese companies have bought from foreign semiconductor suppliers because those are better. But the US has now turned this matter into an existential crisis, a matter of survival. Is it then any wonder that China, both public and private actors, are now pouring billions into the domestic semiconductor industry?

fock 6y ago
> If you look at the Chinese chip industry, then you see that a lot of money comes from the private sector. Huawei, Xiaomi, etc are investing a ton of money in semiconductor companies. A private sector which got so successful not least because government systematically robbed IP from competitors (Nortel...). Yes, western politics also messed this up, but no these are not "private" sector operations in the same way Tesla is.
- CyanBird 6y ago
  > government systematically robbed IP from competitors You do realize that's exactly how the US became an industrial power right? The difference being that most companies were happy to provide access to their technology in exchange of reaping higher profits from penny on the dollar Chinese labor and expedited logistics But ofc, you never hear that, or the fact that we are talking of a different country with different laws, the US is not entitled to enforce its laws in other nations after all
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> If you look at the Chinese chip industry, then you see that a lot of money comes from the private sector. Huawei, Xiaomi, etc are investing a ton of money in semiconductor companies. Where do you think those "private companies" got the money to build their businesses? Notice also that it's domestic (i.e. controlled by the Chinese government) "private companies" doing this. China isn't allowed to just nakedly subsidize everything under trade agreements, so they have to do money laundering like that in order to get away with it. > Clearly it's not all government money. It doesn't actually have to be. All it has to be is enough government money to put competitors out of business. > There's also a big difference between investing in an industry with the goal of dominating the world and eliminating competition, vs the goal of becoming a sovereign equal. Why is it necessarily the former, and not the latter? Because the former results in one country being effectively the sole source in the world for certain products, e.g. cell phones, whereas the latter results in a domestic industry but not the destruction of all foreign industry in that market. > The US is trying to kill the Chinese semiconductor industry The US is trying to prevent the world semiconductor industry from becoming monopolized by China the same way they've been doing to so many other industries, because semiconductors have significant national security implications.
- FooBarWidget 6y ago
  > Where do you think those "private companies" got the money to build their businesses? By... selling stuff to people? I'm sure they get government subsidies, but that's not all of their money, or even a majority. > so they have to do money laundering like that in order to get away with it I'd like to see some proof that 1) they launder money and 2) that it's in significant enough amounts as to allow companies to adopt a kill-the-rest-of-the-world strategy. The latter part of your post basically boils down to "action X is evil when they do it, but not when we do it, because we're the good guys and they the bad guys". Where's the proof? Has China actually killed competition via years of state-funded undercutting, or is it just speculation that they might?

fock 6y ago

> If you look at the Chinese chip industry, then you see that a lot of money comes from the private sector. Huawei, Xiaomi, etc are investing a ton of money in semiconductor companies. A private sector which got so successful not least because government systematically robbed IP from competitors (Nortel...). Yes, western politics also messed this up, but no these are not "private" sector operations in the same way Tesla is.

CyanBird 6y ago
> government systematically robbed IP from competitors You do realize that's exactly how the US became an industrial power right? The difference being that most companies were happy to provide access to their technology in exchange of reaping higher profits from penny on the dollar Chinese labor and expedited logistics But ofc, you never hear that, or the fact that we are talking of a different country with different laws, the US is not entitled to enforce its laws in other nations after all

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> If you look at the Chinese chip industry, then you see that a lot of money comes from the private sector. Huawei, Xiaomi, etc are investing a ton of money in semiconductor companies. Where do you think those "private companies" got the money to build their businesses? Notice also that it's domestic (i.e. controlled by the Chinese government) "private companies" doing this. China isn't allowed to just nakedly subsidize everything under trade agreements, so they have to do money laundering like that in order to get away with it. > Clearly it's not all government money. It doesn't actually have to be. All it has to be is enough government money to put competitors out of business. > There's also a big difference between investing in an industry with the goal of dominating the world and eliminating competition, vs the goal of becoming a sovereign equal. Why is it necessarily the former, and not the latter? Because the former results in one country being effectively the sole source in the world for certain products, e.g. cell phones, whereas the latter results in a domestic industry but not the destruction of all foreign industry in that market. > The US is trying to kill the Chinese semiconductor industry The US is trying to prevent the world semiconductor industry from becoming monopolized by China the same way they've been doing to so many other industries, because semiconductors have significant national security implications.

FooBarWidget 6y ago
> Where do you think those "private companies" got the money to build their businesses? By... selling stuff to people? I'm sure they get government subsidies, but that's not all of their money, or even a majority. > so they have to do money laundering like that in order to get away with it I'd like to see some proof that 1) they launder money and 2) that it's in significant enough amounts as to allow companies to adopt a kill-the-rest-of-the-world strategy. The latter part of your post basically boils down to "action X is evil when they do it, but not when we do it, because we're the good guys and they the bad guys". Where's the proof? Has China actually killed competition via years of state-funded undercutting, or is it just speculation that they might?