3 ms·

> but for security reasons? Seems to be the strongest/easiest route to go to justify blocking it. The whole national security angle and all. > then they shoul

> but for security reasons? Seems to be the strongest/easiest route to go to justify blocking it. The whole national security angle and all. > then they should have objected when a Japanese company bought ARM as well I have to imagine this was a bit of sleeping at the wheel. I'm not sure though.

tester34 6y ago
>Seems to be the strongest/easiest route to go to justify blocking it. The whole national security angle and all. What makes you think so? So Intel - US / TSMC - Taiwan can be considered as national security, but ARM not?
- ericmay 6y ago
  Could you elaborate? I guess my thinking is similar to if someone wanted to try and buy Intel. The U.S. would probably stop it on national security grounds. I hope that makes sense - at least where I was trying to go with that comment. Maybe it's incorrect or not well thought out but I'd at least like to make my point clear :)
  - tester34 6y ago
    I thought you wanted to say that they wanted to block it, but had no solid reason, so picked "easiest" route and blocked it on national security grounds
    - ericmay 6y ago
      That is what I wanted to say. Apologize for any confusion. I guess I didn't understand your comment. Were you trying to say that the U.S. and Taiwan could do it so why not the U.K.? If so, yea I agree with you.
dash2 6y ago
Perhaps more that times have changed. We used to have a strong commitment to the neoliberal ideal of a separation between state and business. The experience of nationalisation had also not been good (think Austen and BT). That’s changed and we are now in the world of “entrepreneurial states” for better or worse.
- ericmay 6y ago
  Yea it's a fascinating topic. I think as countries become weary of each other (E.U. <-> U.K., China <-> U.S., others...) they start to protect industries and such even if it goes in the face of stated ideals. I think we're seeing governments act on a more nation-state basis than in the recent past. Much more scrutiny and distrust. Would love to hear your thoughts on the topic.
- yodelshady 6y ago
  Coming from a 5G thread, this sounds sensible to me. We've seen an enormous hollowing out of institutional competence since the rise of Free Trade At All Costs.
  - dash2 6y ago
    Hmm. Thinking of the UK in the 1970s, "institutional competence" is not the word that springs to mind. But, yeah, there are definitely reasons why the world has got more nationalist, and if everyone else is doing it, to some extent we have to follow suit. Of course, the UK is not a continent-sized economy like the US or China, and has to be a bit more free-trade-oriented than they are.

tester34 6y ago

>Seems to be the strongest/easiest route to go to justify blocking it. The whole national security angle and all. What makes you think so? So Intel - US / TSMC - Taiwan can be considered as national security, but ARM not?

ericmay 6y ago
Could you elaborate? I guess my thinking is similar to if someone wanted to try and buy Intel. The U.S. would probably stop it on national security grounds. I hope that makes sense - at least where I was trying to go with that comment. Maybe it's incorrect or not well thought out but I'd at least like to make my point clear :)
- tester34 6y ago
  I thought you wanted to say that they wanted to block it, but had no solid reason, so picked "easiest" route and blocked it on national security grounds
  - ericmay 6y ago
    That is what I wanted to say. Apologize for any confusion. I guess I didn't understand your comment. Were you trying to say that the U.S. and Taiwan could do it so why not the U.K.? If so, yea I agree with you.

dash2 6y ago

Perhaps more that times have changed. We used to have a strong commitment to the neoliberal ideal of a separation between state and business. The experience of nationalisation had also not been good (think Austen and BT). That’s changed and we are now in the world of “entrepreneurial states” for better or worse.

ericmay 6y ago
Yea it's a fascinating topic. I think as countries become weary of each other (E.U. <-> U.K., China <-> U.S., others...) they start to protect industries and such even if it goes in the face of stated ideals. I think we're seeing governments act on a more nation-state basis than in the recent past. Much more scrutiny and distrust. Would love to hear your thoughts on the topic.
yodelshady 6y ago
Coming from a 5G thread, this sounds sensible to me. We've seen an enormous hollowing out of institutional competence since the rise of Free Trade At All Costs.
- dash2 6y ago
  Hmm. Thinking of the UK in the 1970s, "institutional competence" is not the word that springs to mind. But, yeah, there are definitely reasons why the world has got more nationalist, and if everyone else is doing it, to some extent we have to follow suit. Of course, the UK is not a continent-sized economy like the US or China, and has to be a bit more free-trade-oriented than they are.