7 ms·

It sounds to me like he doesn't actually say that. In the article: >The UK has “no chance in hell” of becoming technologically sovereign Well which is it, hav

It sounds to me like he doesn't actually say that. In the article: >The UK has “no chance in hell” of becoming technologically sovereign Well which is it, having our own Tech champs or being technologically sovereign? Because they're totally different things. To be honest I'm not sure any country apart from China stands any chance of becoming technologically sovereign. Like what does that mean? Do we need to mine our own Lithium, do we need to build our own foundries, are we planning on building a competitor to ASML to source machines to build our foundries? And look at Oil prices, the UK isn't massively dependent on Oil and we have our own resources but we still got absolutely slammed by the war in Russia because we operate in a global market. So do we need our own Lithium mines and export controls to stop them being bid up on the international market when there's some exogenous event?

Zigurd 4y ago
No nation, anywhere on the planet, is by itself technologically sovereign. The ability to get by in the world is a cooperative venture for everyone, even the US. What makes first tier technological nations different is the alliances of which they are active contributing members. Those alliances make trade flow smoothly and securely. That is what creates prosperity in an interconnected world. That is especially important in evaluating China's ability to achieve technological first tier status. China has one formal alliance. It is with North Korea. This is remarkable. China cannot rely on Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, nor even any country with a land border with China as an ally. China's neighbors are threatened by China, are hostile to China, or are just extremely wary of China. China's navy cannot project power beyond the island nations off China's coast. China's position and prospects are less advantageous than it seems to many people.
- fooker 4y ago
  > China has one formal alliance. This is a geopolitical trope about 20 years out of date. Don’t be surprised when dozens of African and Asian countries choose China over Western interests if push comes to shove.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    > Don’t be surprised when dozens of African and Asian countries choose China over Western interests if push comes to shove. And don't be surprised if they don't. Even if China has a lot of frenemies on its border in Asia, every country in Asia has some fear over China, and this often pushes them to improve their relationship with the USA (e.g. Vietnam). Even Russia and North Korea have some antagonism with China. None of their relationships are particularly strong. > This is a geopolitical trope about 20 years out of date. I don't think. China hasn't done much to court soft power in the last 20 years beyond a some loans for infrastructure made by Chinese companies. They still are inwardly focused.
    - hosh 4y ago
      1. China has been building out their railroad net for years now, both internally and reaching outwards 2. Those synergize with the loans. They are not "some" loans 3. Cultural exports have been going on for a while, though it has not been as successful as South Korea or Japan 4. China has been seriously wooing back Western-educated citizens to head R&D in a variety areas, for the past ten years or so. Quality-of-life, career advancements, respect and social status exceeds that of staying in the West. That's more the sufficient to successfully bring expertise back. 5. China has been adding more people into the international computing and network standards community. They are starting to influence that. 6. China has been developing its naval power. While it has yet to field a fully operational carrier group, its drone carrier program is probably further along than the US Navy 7. China needs to secure a supply of crude oil, since they are a net importer. The SE Asian shipping corridor, of which the Taiwanese strait anchors one end of it, is going to be hotly contested. 8. Along with some other countries, China has been involved in creation of an alternate world reserve currency. That is not yet successful as far as I know. I think the general nationalist sentiment among Chinese citizens is along the lines of, "we were once a superpower, why shouldn't we be again?". And, the culture tends to be more amendable to thinking generationally; that is, the benefits may not be realized in this generation, but that's ok.
      - smcl 4y ago
- alephnerd 4y ago
  Pakistan's airforce works closely with Chengdu Aerospace Corporation - the JF-17 Thunder [0] being their flagship product. That said, even Chinese flagship aerospace manufacturers also depend on IP transfers from Russian firms like Klimov and UEC Saturn. Also, most companies require some amount of IP transfer and collaboration because of how complex Engine design, Body design, etc are, as well as the fact that collaboration incentivizes collaborating countries to purchase these weapon systems. Aerospace, cybersecurity, enterprise partnerships, weapons systems - it's all the same business model. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder
- uup 4y ago
  China also has a security agreement with the Solomon Islands. While a tiny nation in and of itself, the use of the islands by the Chinese navy allow for quite a bit of force projection into the pacific. It would be very hard, for instance, for the U.S. to use their navy to defend Australia or Taiwan.
  - humanwhosits 4y ago
    Australia is kind of a fortress, just by being so physically far away from most places. All the important population centers are far to the south, so the north becomes a continent sized staging area for battle
  - coredog64 4y ago
    The international airport in Honiara is called “Henderson Field” and not whatever name the Japanese gave their airfield. Based on historical precedents, it might be premature to say that a naval base in the Solomons means game over for Australia.
    - uup 4y ago
      No one knows how a military conflict between China and Australia would end. I can’t imagine it helps Australia to have a major naval military installation between Australia and one of its major allies however.
      - 0xBDB 4y ago
        I don't imagine it would either, which is I assume why someone said something pointed to the government of the Solomons. Maybe someday, but for now China isn't really in a position to try to rebase outside the First Island Chain without permission. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/14/solomon-islands-pm-rules-out-chinese-military-base-china-australia-security-partner-manasseh-sogavare https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/14/solomon-island...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dirtyid 4y ago
  US was near tier1 technologic autarky post war until 90s, it had unrivalled STEM talent pool (by virtue of others having relatively very little) as well as FP tools to constrain foreign high tech competition while feeling her own via favourable immigration / brain drain policies. US crushed JP semi in 80s, but chose not to continue crushing other east asian tech ambitions / indy policy in 90s-10s because it was deemed acceptable cost of feeding alliances in era of US primacy. Now US is desperately trying to reshore semi and other strategic supply chains now that she realized sensibly that interconnected world is increasingly not secure, especially in potential future frontlines of allied soil. Ultimately what likely will prevent US from recreating tech soveriengty according to analysis is lack of talent - domestic doesn't produce enough, nor can current immigration policy close gap. > especially important in evaluating China Not particularly. PRC doesn't need alliances to leech off, because she has the demographics headroom to generate massive talent and governance power to systematically build academic / R&D / S&T institutions to harness said talent to be directly competitive with US + co. Mostly indigenously with big bux programs to recruit critical foreign talent and espionage to fill gaps. There's a reason PRC is rapidly catching up to tier1 tech levels on almost every sector within the last 10 years now that it's producing comparable STEM talent than ALL OECD countries combined, with lagging indicator of # of PhDs undergoing similar explosion that will ultimately drive PRC to tier1 levels. PRC has the most prospects and extremely strong advantages going forward simply because it will have the most skilled workers working off a relatively comprehensive industrial/tech chain and can souly focus on achieveing technologic sovereingy without stepping on toes. Unlike US whose has to balance providing advanced allies both security and prosperity. It's increasingly unable to do the former in PRC's back yard and now the latter is being harvested/reshored to US soil As for PRC's neighbourhood... was US at height of primacy threatened by Cuba / South America? There was some fucking around and finding out. Folks in the neighbour hood can see which way the winds are shifting. PRC's growing power has already pushed most of region into neutrality and hedging, while actual US alliances are giving nothing but platitudes - very little concrete actions that actually boostered US defense position within 1st island chain. Also PRC has massive blue water navy with expanding replenishment fleet, it just doesn't choose to project outside of 1st island chain much, but it does regularly. Aleutian Islands this week.
scythe 4y ago
Lithium, ironically, is one of the few resources that the UK has plenty of. https://inis.iaea.org/search/searchsinglerecord.aspx?recordsFor=SingleRecord&RN=20018313 https://inis.iaea.org/search/searchsinglerecord.aspx?records... (1987) https://cornishstuff.com/2021/02/02/high-grade-of-lithium-found-near-st-austell/ https://cornishstuff.com/2021/02/02/high-grade-of-lithium-fo... (2021) Other things, like nickel, would be more problematic.
elil17 4y ago
"Technologically sovereign" means that a country is able to get the technologies it needs to achieve it's goals either internally or through alliances that don't create a "one-sided structural dependency." [1] Saying that the UK isn't technologically sovereign is essentially saying that the UK has an undersized technology sector and doesn't have enough power to import effectively. On the flip side, you could view it as meaning that the UK has outsized geopolitical and economic ambitions given its size and technological capabilities. [1]: https://olc.worldbank.org/system/files/Webinar%201-4_Presentation_Edler.pdf https://olc.worldbank.org/system/files/Webinar%201-4_Present...
- eternalban 4y ago
  Flip side is more compelling. I don't think loss of empire is an easy pill and takes generations to process. Different cultures cope differently. Would be interesting to hear from Turks (Ottoman) on this. Russians clearly are still not over their loss of standing. I remember scenes from BBC's spy shows (Smiley stuff) where old IC hands (recruited from elite colleges) lament and make ironic comments. British Empire was a big deal. Can you imagine the shock of dropping from that height? And you know, the brits have one quality that has always impressed me: they are irrepressible. They just don't give up. Really admire that. p.s. this is the moment of realization. You can see it on his face, sitting on his '[shorter] chair'. location is Tehran, Iran, 1943: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Tehran_Conference%2C_1943.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Tehran_C...
Etheryte 4y ago
This is not how the article approached technologically sovereign at all, as is this is just a strawman argument. No one proposed that sovereignty is about producing everything from scratch yourself. Here's the actual excerpt: > One question countries have to ask themselves if whether they have all the critical technologies needed to run a country and its economy. > “The answer for Britain” is “absolutely no, there is no chance in hell that Britain could ever become technologically sovereign,” he said.
- shubb 4y ago
  Do you mind explaining more clearly the difference between your understanding of what the article means, and what the GP wrote? They seem pretty similar?
  - registeredcorn 4y ago
    I'm in the same boat as you. I'm not sure exactly what, "whether they have all the critical technologies needed to run a country and its economy", means. When I think "critical technologies" I think of a lot of what SilverBirch was bringing up. When I think of, critical technologies [...] to run a country and its economy, I think of things like: EMS, traffic lights, the stock market, electricity, etc. Similarly, saying something like "economy" could either mean, "businesses specific to Britain", or, "the 'economic climate' of Britain, which is influenced by a global market". Example: Can a technology firm start up in Britain? Absolutely. They might even do well, depending on how they're run. Can a technology firm start up in Britain and immediately sustain the current economy that British Citizens are currently accustomed to? That's a bit of a taller order. It's hard to get a feel for exactly what is meant by how the statement was worded. Any country can compete, but without the global resources provided by businesses that exist across the world, any local-only upstart is going to struggle to be competitive in any part of any market.
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      Yeah, even something “simple” like a replacement of Visa or Mastercard is quite complicated.
giobox 4y ago
I think it's a huge stretch to say the two concepts aren't related. To take the example of the military; we have the "military industrial complex" which is the collection of private companies that form the vital part of the state's war functions. To become technologically sovereign will require a similar basket of private companies based in your own State, unless you expect the government to be capable of all of these tasks effectively itself. Think universities, chip designers, fabs, factories. This is also not an all or nothing choice - the absence of Lithium in the UK is not a good argument against considering strategically what aspects of the tech industry should be sovereign.
- f1shy 4y ago
  Exactly. And I would add, it is not about producing everything, but being able, if need be, to produce it. To have enough know how inland.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  Also, it may be soon economically viable to harvest lithium from the ocean :)
tablespoon 4y ago
> To be honest I'm not sure any country apart from China stands any chance of becoming technologically sovereign. IMHO, the US probably could manage it too: it has a big population and lots of natural resources. The reason it isn't is more of issue of ideology and will: it was far more technologically sovereign in the past than it is now, but chose to give that up so some investors could get more profits in the short-term. It's unlikely to change, since the ideologies that drove those choices are still strong.
- lazyeye 4y ago
  I wonder what percentage of the population it was that made the decision to "choose to give it up".
  - quantified 4y ago
    A smaller percentage made the many impactful choices, a larger percentage went along with it. For example, some people have always been intently "buy American", most haven't been. Few if any "buy American" people were ever involved in or supportive of moving the jobs to China, India, Phillipines, or Mexico. And it'll be iffy as to whether they have 401(k) gains from the financiers' decisions to do the movement.
- azinman2 4y ago
  I don’t know what you call short term, because this has been decades in the making. I’d at least call it medium term. The flip side is now the US is more competitive globally as the products can be priced as such, in addition to consumer price decreases. You also have the issue that most Americans don’t want the ultra low paying jobs necessary to build all this stuff, nor want the environmental damage from the mining. So it’s not so simple as just some greedy evil villains we can point to.
bobthepanda 4y ago
I would say even China isn’t technologically sovereign, depending on how broad the definition of technology is. As a general example, even the Chinese attempt at building a commercial airliner still uses Western engines and other avionics.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  It's easy to be technologically sovereign: just give up any technologies you can't produce domestically. Isolated tribes in Papua New Guinea manage to be completely self-sufficient, to give an example. What's impossible is staying at the technological forefront while being technologically sovereign.

Zigurd 4y ago

No nation, anywhere on the planet, is by itself technologically sovereign. The ability to get by in the world is a cooperative venture for everyone, even the US. What makes first tier technological nations different is the alliances of which they are active contributing members. Those alliances make trade flow smoothly and securely. That is what creates prosperity in an interconnected world. That is especially important in evaluating China's ability to achieve technological first tier status. China has one formal alliance. It is with North Korea. This is remarkable. China cannot rely on Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, nor even any country with a land border with China as an ally. China's neighbors are threatened by China, are hostile to China, or are just extremely wary of China. China's navy cannot project power beyond the island nations off China's coast. China's position and prospects are less advantageous than it seems to many people.

fooker 4y ago
> China has one formal alliance. This is a geopolitical trope about 20 years out of date. Don’t be surprised when dozens of African and Asian countries choose China over Western interests if push comes to shove.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  > Don’t be surprised when dozens of African and Asian countries choose China over Western interests if push comes to shove. And don't be surprised if they don't. Even if China has a lot of frenemies on its border in Asia, every country in Asia has some fear over China, and this often pushes them to improve their relationship with the USA (e.g. Vietnam). Even Russia and North Korea have some antagonism with China. None of their relationships are particularly strong. > This is a geopolitical trope about 20 years out of date. I don't think. China hasn't done much to court soft power in the last 20 years beyond a some loans for infrastructure made by Chinese companies. They still are inwardly focused.
  - hosh 4y ago
    1. China has been building out their railroad net for years now, both internally and reaching outwards 2. Those synergize with the loans. They are not "some" loans 3. Cultural exports have been going on for a while, though it has not been as successful as South Korea or Japan 4. China has been seriously wooing back Western-educated citizens to head R&D in a variety areas, for the past ten years or so. Quality-of-life, career advancements, respect and social status exceeds that of staying in the West. That's more the sufficient to successfully bring expertise back. 5. China has been adding more people into the international computing and network standards community. They are starting to influence that. 6. China has been developing its naval power. While it has yet to field a fully operational carrier group, its drone carrier program is probably further along than the US Navy 7. China needs to secure a supply of crude oil, since they are a net importer. The SE Asian shipping corridor, of which the Taiwanese strait anchors one end of it, is going to be hotly contested. 8. Along with some other countries, China has been involved in creation of an alternate world reserve currency. That is not yet successful as far as I know. I think the general nationalist sentiment among Chinese citizens is along the lines of, "we were once a superpower, why shouldn't we be again?". And, the culture tends to be more amendable to thinking generationally; that is, the benefits may not be realized in this generation, but that's ok.
    - smcl 4y ago
alephnerd 4y ago
Pakistan's airforce works closely with Chengdu Aerospace Corporation - the JF-17 Thunder [0] being their flagship product. That said, even Chinese flagship aerospace manufacturers also depend on IP transfers from Russian firms like Klimov and UEC Saturn. Also, most companies require some amount of IP transfer and collaboration because of how complex Engine design, Body design, etc are, as well as the fact that collaboration incentivizes collaborating countries to purchase these weapon systems. Aerospace, cybersecurity, enterprise partnerships, weapons systems - it's all the same business model. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC/PAC_JF-17_Thunder
uup 4y ago
China also has a security agreement with the Solomon Islands. While a tiny nation in and of itself, the use of the islands by the Chinese navy allow for quite a bit of force projection into the pacific. It would be very hard, for instance, for the U.S. to use their navy to defend Australia or Taiwan.
- humanwhosits 4y ago
  Australia is kind of a fortress, just by being so physically far away from most places. All the important population centers are far to the south, so the north becomes a continent sized staging area for battle
- coredog64 4y ago
  The international airport in Honiara is called “Henderson Field” and not whatever name the Japanese gave their airfield. Based on historical precedents, it might be premature to say that a naval base in the Solomons means game over for Australia.
  - uup 4y ago
    No one knows how a military conflict between China and Australia would end. I can’t imagine it helps Australia to have a major naval military installation between Australia and one of its major allies however.
    - 0xBDB 4y ago
      I don't imagine it would either, which is I assume why someone said something pointed to the government of the Solomons. Maybe someday, but for now China isn't really in a position to try to rebase outside the First Island Chain without permission. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/14/solomon-islands-pm-rules-out-chinese-military-base-china-australia-security-partner-manasseh-sogavare https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/14/solomon-island...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dirtyid 4y ago
US was near tier1 technologic autarky post war until 90s, it had unrivalled STEM talent pool (by virtue of others having relatively very little) as well as FP tools to constrain foreign high tech competition while feeling her own via favourable immigration / brain drain policies. US crushed JP semi in 80s, but chose not to continue crushing other east asian tech ambitions / indy policy in 90s-10s because it was deemed acceptable cost of feeding alliances in era of US primacy. Now US is desperately trying to reshore semi and other strategic supply chains now that she realized sensibly that interconnected world is increasingly not secure, especially in potential future frontlines of allied soil. Ultimately what likely will prevent US from recreating tech soveriengty according to analysis is lack of talent - domestic doesn't produce enough, nor can current immigration policy close gap. > especially important in evaluating China Not particularly. PRC doesn't need alliances to leech off, because she has the demographics headroom to generate massive talent and governance power to systematically build academic / R&D / S&T institutions to harness said talent to be directly competitive with US + co. Mostly indigenously with big bux programs to recruit critical foreign talent and espionage to fill gaps. There's a reason PRC is rapidly catching up to tier1 tech levels on almost every sector within the last 10 years now that it's producing comparable STEM talent than ALL OECD countries combined, with lagging indicator of # of PhDs undergoing similar explosion that will ultimately drive PRC to tier1 levels. PRC has the most prospects and extremely strong advantages going forward simply because it will have the most skilled workers working off a relatively comprehensive industrial/tech chain and can souly focus on achieveing technologic sovereingy without stepping on toes. Unlike US whose has to balance providing advanced allies both security and prosperity. It's increasingly unable to do the former in PRC's back yard and now the latter is being harvested/reshored to US soil As for PRC's neighbourhood... was US at height of primacy threatened by Cuba / South America? There was some fucking around and finding out. Folks in the neighbour hood can see which way the winds are shifting. PRC's growing power has already pushed most of region into neutrality and hedging, while actual US alliances are giving nothing but platitudes - very little concrete actions that actually boostered US defense position within 1st island chain. Also PRC has massive blue water navy with expanding replenishment fleet, it just doesn't choose to project outside of 1st island chain much, but it does regularly. Aleutian Islands this week.

scythe 4y ago

Lithium, ironically, is one of the few resources that the UK has plenty of. https://inis.iaea.org/search/searchsinglerecord.aspx?recordsFor=SingleRecord&RN=20018313 https://inis.iaea.org/search/searchsinglerecord.aspx?records... (1987) https://cornishstuff.com/2021/02/02/high-grade-of-lithium-found-near-st-austell/ https://cornishstuff.com/2021/02/02/high-grade-of-lithium-fo... (2021) Other things, like nickel, would be more problematic.

elil17 4y ago

"Technologically sovereign" means that a country is able to get the technologies it needs to achieve it's goals either internally or through alliances that don't create a "one-sided structural dependency." [1] Saying that the UK isn't technologically sovereign is essentially saying that the UK has an undersized technology sector and doesn't have enough power to import effectively. On the flip side, you could view it as meaning that the UK has outsized geopolitical and economic ambitions given its size and technological capabilities. [1]: https://olc.worldbank.org/system/files/Webinar%201-4_Presentation_Edler.pdf https://olc.worldbank.org/system/files/Webinar%201-4_Present...

eternalban 4y ago
Flip side is more compelling. I don't think loss of empire is an easy pill and takes generations to process. Different cultures cope differently. Would be interesting to hear from Turks (Ottoman) on this. Russians clearly are still not over their loss of standing. I remember scenes from BBC's spy shows (Smiley stuff) where old IC hands (recruited from elite colleges) lament and make ironic comments. British Empire was a big deal. Can you imagine the shock of dropping from that height? And you know, the brits have one quality that has always impressed me: they are irrepressible. They just don't give up. Really admire that. p.s. this is the moment of realization. You can see it on his face, sitting on his '[shorter] chair'. location is Tehran, Iran, 1943: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Tehran_Conference%2C_1943.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Tehran_C...

Etheryte 4y ago

This is not how the article approached technologically sovereign at all, as is this is just a strawman argument. No one proposed that sovereignty is about producing everything from scratch yourself. Here's the actual excerpt: > One question countries have to ask themselves if whether they have all the critical technologies needed to run a country and its economy. > “The answer for Britain” is “absolutely no, there is no chance in hell that Britain could ever become technologically sovereign,” he said.

shubb 4y ago
Do you mind explaining more clearly the difference between your understanding of what the article means, and what the GP wrote? They seem pretty similar?
- registeredcorn 4y ago
  I'm in the same boat as you. I'm not sure exactly what, "whether they have all the critical technologies needed to run a country and its economy", means. When I think "critical technologies" I think of a lot of what SilverBirch was bringing up. When I think of, critical technologies [...] to run a country and its economy, I think of things like: EMS, traffic lights, the stock market, electricity, etc. Similarly, saying something like "economy" could either mean, "businesses specific to Britain", or, "the 'economic climate' of Britain, which is influenced by a global market". Example: Can a technology firm start up in Britain? Absolutely. They might even do well, depending on how they're run. Can a technology firm start up in Britain and immediately sustain the current economy that British Citizens are currently accustomed to? That's a bit of a taller order. It's hard to get a feel for exactly what is meant by how the statement was worded. Any country can compete, but without the global resources provided by businesses that exist across the world, any local-only upstart is going to struggle to be competitive in any part of any market.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    Yeah, even something “simple” like a replacement of Visa or Mastercard is quite complicated.

giobox 4y ago

I think it's a huge stretch to say the two concepts aren't related. To take the example of the military; we have the "military industrial complex" which is the collection of private companies that form the vital part of the state's war functions. To become technologically sovereign will require a similar basket of private companies based in your own State, unless you expect the government to be capable of all of these tasks effectively itself. Think universities, chip designers, fabs, factories. This is also not an all or nothing choice - the absence of Lithium in the UK is not a good argument against considering strategically what aspects of the tech industry should be sovereign.

f1shy 4y ago
Exactly. And I would add, it is not about producing everything, but being able, if need be, to produce it. To have enough know how inland.
mensetmanusman 4y ago
Also, it may be soon economically viable to harvest lithium from the ocean :)

tablespoon 4y ago

> To be honest I'm not sure any country apart from China stands any chance of becoming technologically sovereign. IMHO, the US probably could manage it too: it has a big population and lots of natural resources. The reason it isn't is more of issue of ideology and will: it was far more technologically sovereign in the past than it is now, but chose to give that up so some investors could get more profits in the short-term. It's unlikely to change, since the ideologies that drove those choices are still strong.

lazyeye 4y ago
I wonder what percentage of the population it was that made the decision to "choose to give it up".
- quantified 4y ago
  A smaller percentage made the many impactful choices, a larger percentage went along with it. For example, some people have always been intently "buy American", most haven't been. Few if any "buy American" people were ever involved in or supportive of moving the jobs to China, India, Phillipines, or Mexico. And it'll be iffy as to whether they have 401(k) gains from the financiers' decisions to do the movement.
azinman2 4y ago
I don’t know what you call short term, because this has been decades in the making. I’d at least call it medium term. The flip side is now the US is more competitive globally as the products can be priced as such, in addition to consumer price decreases. You also have the issue that most Americans don’t want the ultra low paying jobs necessary to build all this stuff, nor want the environmental damage from the mining. So it’s not so simple as just some greedy evil villains we can point to.

bobthepanda 4y ago

I would say even China isn’t technologically sovereign, depending on how broad the definition of technology is. As a general example, even the Chinese attempt at building a commercial airliner still uses Western engines and other avionics.

ETH_start 4y ago
It's easy to be technologically sovereign: just give up any technologies you can't produce domestically. Isolated tribes in Papua New Guinea manage to be completely self-sufficient, to give an example. What's impossible is staying at the technological forefront while being technologically sovereign.