3 ms·

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'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.
- 411111111111111 4y ago
  That's not how these two credit card networks work. You have card issuers and acquirers, both of these can be local, so it's not a big issue if you're cut off from the world. It's more like a web of trust peer-to-peer protocol, so if a foreign entity removes you from the web of trust, you'll still be able to have transactions with anyone that still considers you trustworthy. That's probably the only reason why visa/Mastercard is so broadly accepted. Amex is run differently, and it's rarely accepted outside of the USA for example
- sdnas211 4y ago
  It isn't simple because Mastercard literally runs the interbank payment network for the UK.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    Which is why simple is in quotes. “Simple”, as in everyone takes it for granted
ethbr0 4y ago
I think you're reasoning about it from the wrong end. The implied precursor I took from the article was that another nation suddenly decides to remove access to a critical technology, via coercing or ordering the company supplying that technology. "Technological sovereignty," in the context of the article and quotes, would mean a country has the means to continue without that access. This doesn't mean creating a commercially-viable, world-leading industry (there can only be so many of those!), but does mean having a plan and emergency suppliers who can make functional substitutes. As an example, the US's strategic petroleum reserve made it sovereign in the matter of energy (effectively, and pre-recent production increases). Which is also a good example because it didn't mean 1:1 replacement of 100% of supply volume, but rather replacing enough so that alternate suppliers can be switched to and restricting access lost its power. But that was my read. Ymmv.
- registeredcorn 4y ago
  Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for that! I was coming at it from a, "Let's isolate ourselves!" type thing.

bobthepanda 4y ago

Yeah, even something “simple” like a replacement of Visa or Mastercard is quite complicated.

411111111111111 4y ago
That's not how these two credit card networks work. You have card issuers and acquirers, both of these can be local, so it's not a big issue if you're cut off from the world. It's more like a web of trust peer-to-peer protocol, so if a foreign entity removes you from the web of trust, you'll still be able to have transactions with anyone that still considers you trustworthy. That's probably the only reason why visa/Mastercard is so broadly accepted. Amex is run differently, and it's rarely accepted outside of the USA for example
sdnas211 4y ago
It isn't simple because Mastercard literally runs the interbank payment network for the UK.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  Which is why simple is in quotes. “Simple”, as in everyone takes it for granted

ethbr0 4y ago

I think you're reasoning about it from the wrong end. The implied precursor I took from the article was that another nation suddenly decides to remove access to a critical technology, via coercing or ordering the company supplying that technology. "Technological sovereignty," in the context of the article and quotes, would mean a country has the means to continue without that access. This doesn't mean creating a commercially-viable, world-leading industry (there can only be so many of those!), but does mean having a plan and emergency suppliers who can make functional substitutes. As an example, the US's strategic petroleum reserve made it sovereign in the matter of energy (effectively, and pre-recent production increases). Which is also a good example because it didn't mean 1:1 replacement of 100% of supply volume, but rather replacing enough so that alternate suppliers can be switched to and restricting access lost its power. But that was my read. Ymmv.

registeredcorn 4y ago
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for that! I was coming at it from a, "Let's isolate ourselves!" type thing.