5 ms·

I don't know. If the Chinese government wants to subsidise my OLED screen, I say let them.

by scoopertrooper 5y ago

azinman2 5y ago
And in doing so, they put everyone else out of business and then own the market.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Isn’t unregulated capitalism prone to natural monopolies?
- MikusR 5y ago
  You know what the company that owns this domain does?
dotancohen 5y ago
That's extraordinarily short-sighted. When your nation no longer has manufacturing capability and you are beholden to Chinese OLED screens you might think differently. Not only will the price be fit for a monopoly, but also they could freely restrict tech from your other industries, further crippling your nation. Not to mention restricting sales to military and other strategic ventures. Several decades ago it was food security - the idea that a nation must produce enough of its own food to feed its populace - that was the concern of import policy. Today the field is much, much broader. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  My nation already has zero OLED screen manufacturing capacity, the world seems to keep spinning. China will dump out their OLEDs, I’ll get cheaper OLEDs, my nation will make other things and exchange them for OLEDs. China may come to dominate the OLED market, but OLEDs will be displaced by micro-LEDs. China will never completely control any particular technology simply because, wealthy as they are, they don’t have the resources to afford such a thing. They may be able to buy their way to market dominance, but there will always be alternative sources. Not least, because of the fact they’re not the only country pursuing a strategy of national champions. Food security is also a bit of a joke. Well not a joke, a cudgel used by the farming lobby to shut down reasoned discussions about whether we should reduce some of the largesses currently extended to farmers. Nations don’t need ‘food security’, they need a functioning global supply chain and reasonable leaders that can restrain the dogs of war. Notions of things like food security only make wars more likely because nations feel like they’d be more likely to win in the event of one occurring. But really, we all know nobody would win in a war where America got to the point where food security was in question.
- est 5y ago
  > they could freely restrict tech from your other industries, further crippling your nation So yeah basically what Trump did to China during the trade war.

I don't know. If the Chinese government wants to subsidise my OLED screen, I say let them.

azinman2 5y ago

And in doing so, they put everyone else out of business and then own the market.

rbanffy 5y ago
Isn’t unregulated capitalism prone to natural monopolies?
MikusR 5y ago
You know what the company that owns this domain does?

dotancohen 5y ago

That's extraordinarily short-sighted. When your nation no longer has manufacturing capability and you are beholden to Chinese OLED screens you might think differently. Not only will the price be fit for a monopoly, but also they could freely restrict tech from your other industries, further crippling your nation. Not to mention restricting sales to military and other strategic ventures. Several decades ago it was food security - the idea that a nation must produce enough of its own food to feed its populace - that was the concern of import policy. Today the field is much, much broader. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security

scoopertrooper 5y ago
My nation already has zero OLED screen manufacturing capacity, the world seems to keep spinning. China will dump out their OLEDs, I’ll get cheaper OLEDs, my nation will make other things and exchange them for OLEDs. China may come to dominate the OLED market, but OLEDs will be displaced by micro-LEDs. China will never completely control any particular technology simply because, wealthy as they are, they don’t have the resources to afford such a thing. They may be able to buy their way to market dominance, but there will always be alternative sources. Not least, because of the fact they’re not the only country pursuing a strategy of national champions. Food security is also a bit of a joke. Well not a joke, a cudgel used by the farming lobby to shut down reasoned discussions about whether we should reduce some of the largesses currently extended to farmers. Nations don’t need ‘food security’, they need a functioning global supply chain and reasonable leaders that can restrain the dogs of war. Notions of things like food security only make wars more likely because nations feel like they’d be more likely to win in the event of one occurring. But really, we all know nobody would win in a war where America got to the point where food security was in question.
est 5y ago
> they could freely restrict tech from your other industries, further crippling your nation So yeah basically what Trump did to China during the trade war.