3 ms·

Of course they do! And in the US I'm sure the opinion is that the Chinese should play by the rules if they want access to the global semiconductor market. Geopo

Of course they do! And in the US I'm sure the opinion is that the Chinese should play by the rules if they want access to the global semiconductor market. Geopolitics! The real winners here are the fabs who are going to be laughing themselves to the bank over the next few months/years of heightened prices

rjzzleep 6y ago
EDIT: I get that you don't necessarily mean that it's(playing by the rules) really the case, so I apologize should that be the case. Either way I've heard that global foundries is having an intake on orders because of the situation. So you're right in your conclusion. You mean like when the US slapped tariffs on Bombardier which were illegal but forced Bombardier[1] to sell off their assets to Airbus? Or when they pressured Germany into lifting their patents on Anthrax treatments[2]? Or when it signed into law the Hague invasion act should an american ever be held by the International Court of Justice[3]? Or when they decimated HTC but granted Apple a pass? Or when it effectively embargoed Iran and NK from the world food, medical, plane replacement part supplies? Let's be real here. The US plays fair when it CHOOSES to. Yes, I'd rather live in the US than in China. But you need a mirror to understand why countries outside of Russia and China give them a pass. It's because geopolitically speaking the USA has always been America first at any cost. The Chinese were just smart enough to play dumb until they amassed enough power to flip the table, as opposed to some other countries who've been threatening and cursing the US and as a result have had very limited access to modern technology. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/boeings-trade-dispute-canada-bombardier-airbus-alabama-winner-2019-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/boeings-trade-dispute-canada... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2001/oct/23/anthrax.businessofresearch https://www.theguardian.com/business/2001/oct/23/anthrax.bus... [3] https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...
- waiseristy 6y ago
  I think you interpreted "play by the rules" as though I was implying they were fair & ethical rules! I think I should have said "play by the US's rules"!
  - rjzzleep 6y ago
    I noticed that subtle difference only after I posted. That's why I edited my post. Apologies for misunderstanding.

rjzzleep 6y ago

EDIT: I get that you don't necessarily mean that it's(playing by the rules) really the case, so I apologize should that be the case. Either way I've heard that global foundries is having an intake on orders because of the situation. So you're right in your conclusion. You mean like when the US slapped tariffs on Bombardier which were illegal but forced Bombardier[1] to sell off their assets to Airbus? Or when they pressured Germany into lifting their patents on Anthrax treatments[2]? Or when it signed into law the Hague invasion act should an american ever be held by the International Court of Justice[3]? Or when they decimated HTC but granted Apple a pass? Or when it effectively embargoed Iran and NK from the world food, medical, plane replacement part supplies? Let's be real here. The US plays fair when it CHOOSES to. Yes, I'd rather live in the US than in China. But you need a mirror to understand why countries outside of Russia and China give them a pass. It's because geopolitically speaking the USA has always been America first at any cost. The Chinese were just smart enough to play dumb until they amassed enough power to flip the table, as opposed to some other countries who've been threatening and cursing the US and as a result have had very limited access to modern technology. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/boeings-trade-dispute-canada-bombardier-airbus-alabama-winner-2019-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/boeings-trade-dispute-canada... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2001/oct/23/anthrax.businessofresearch https://www.theguardian.com/business/2001/oct/23/anthrax.bus... [3] https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...

waiseristy 6y ago
I think you interpreted "play by the rules" as though I was implying they were fair & ethical rules! I think I should have said "play by the US's rules"!
- rjzzleep 6y ago
  I noticed that subtle difference only after I posted. That's why I edited my post. Apologies for misunderstanding.