6 ms·

Rising energy costs are only half the truth. "BASF to Cut 2,600 Jobs after losing 2 billions in Russian investments " could be the other headline. All their inv

Rising energy costs are only half the truth. "BASF to Cut 2,600 Jobs after losing 2 billions in Russian investments " could be the other headline. All their investments in Russia have been confiscated. This is a bit ironic, as BASF was on of the major forces that pushed Germany into its energy dependence from Russia. And what did they learn from it? => Hey, look, China! Let's invest another 10 billion there. They even fired Saori Dubourg just a few days ago - She was the only board member that disagreed with this China strategy.

slater 4y ago
*losing
- ChemSpider 4y ago
  Fixed, thanks ;-)
est31 4y ago
The confiscations hurt but the job cuts are also a future-looking statement: they think that Germany is a less useful place now for basing their production due to the higher energy costs. This trend is visible in many industries, but of course it's more pronounced in the energy intensive sectors. > Hey, look, China! Let's invest another 10 billion there. China is a rapidly growing economy. Where else should they invest? Also note, that unlike Russia even before the war, it's also the biggest trading partner of the USA. The USA was able to profit from the Ukraine war so much because they didn't have any relevant trading relationships with Russia, so it was easy for them to demand sanctions. But if there should ever be a time where China does something that requires sanctions, then the USA will feel it a lot. So it's a different situation here. Ultimately, if there is trade then there is also a common benefit. Russia brought cheap gas to europe, which was really great for the european economy.
- ChemSpider 4y ago
  Nothing wrong with some investments in China. But there is a difference between "investing" and making the "largest investment ever". Basically their are betting half the company that China does not attack Taiwan and/or does not ship weapons to Russia and/or does not give them the "Jack Ma" treatment. Quite risky, if you ask me.
  - ReptileMan 4y ago
    >Basically their are betting half the company that China does not attack Taiwan and/or does not ship weapons to Russia and/or does not give them the "Jack Ma" treatment. Quite risky, if you ask me. If china attacks Taiwan Europe will react the same way Asia reacted to Russia in Ukraine - with a shrug. Too far away to really care.
    - phatfish 4y ago
      I suspect it will be more than a "shrug". When the TSMC chip production drops off a cliff European manufacturing will be affected as much as anywhere else. It will have more affect than Russia cutting the gas off. With Gas there was existing storage capacity and after 6 months Norway and LNG were there to replace Russian supplies. Sure it cost more but it is out there to be bought internationally. Germany won't be shipping in tanker loads of chips from Qatar, the manufacturing capacity just doesn't exist. This is why Europe and America have woken up to microchip fabrication issue. The capacity to cover being cut off from TSMC fabs wont be online in Europe for many years.
    - oytis 4y ago
      I would expect Europe to follow the US here. If US does nothing, truly Europe couldn't care less. If US is at war with China, I can't imagine Europe doing business as usual.
- alexpetralia 4y ago
  For the uninformed (myself), how is the U.S. profiting from the war in Ukraine? I suspect it would be from financing and selling military equipment to Ukraine and allies?
  - fluxinflex 4y ago
    America is - perhaps - profiting geopolitically. Had the European Union and Russia come closer together then that block would represent a block - financially seen - which would be larger than America.
    - joakleaf 4y ago
      At least based on GDP, Russia's economy would not have added much to EU's economy: USA GDP 2021: 23315 Billion USD EU GDP 2021: 17177 Billion USD (~10x Russia) Russia GDP 2021: 1775 Billion USD https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gdp?continent=world https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gdp?continent=worl...
  - jamil7 4y ago
    Selling energy to countries that can no longer buy Russian energy.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    You can largely ignore comments like that because they aren't useful and are generally conspiratorial without substance. Equally you could say China and India are profiting from the war and are incentivized to continue to abstain and not add pressure to Russia to end the war because they are profiting off of cheap oil imports from Russia. So what I'd say, because the inevitable response is some grand conspiracy about American natural gas companies "wanting the European market", is that anytime someone complains or tries to complain about American natural gas companies just remind them that everyone in the world including China and India are in the same grand conspiracy to pillage Russia. If you believe that American oil and gas companies are so powerful as to cause the war in Ukraine, then you should just submit to their sublime and all-knowing global dominance because it's such as masterstroke and clear display of power that you have no hope of affecting change and should just get along and enjoy your day-to-day. Or, you can understand the more simple truth which is that Putin is butthurt about the end of the Cold War and literally thinks that he should recreate the Russian empire but he and the Russian state apparatus misjudged the war and how NATO and western-allied countries such as South Korea, Japan, and others would respond.
- oytis 4y ago
  > China is a rapidly growing economy. Where else should they invest? Like, some place they would like to be rapidly growing instead of China? Also some place that we don't expect to be at war with in the next few years?
  - this_user 4y ago
    So you are suggesting that there is a large selection of such places available?
  - nivenkos 4y ago
    You really expect us to be at war with China?
    - oytis 4y ago
      There is a decent chance of it I think yes. Maybe not exactly a direct war, more like the current relationships between EU/US and Russia. China's politics now has some similarities to that of Putin - they've entered a vicious circle of being self-convinced by their own propaganda. And propaganda says Taiwan should belong to China even if it means war. I'm not an expect in China though, but wouldn't put any of my own money on China now.
    - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
      A 10% chance while Xi is president. Also, since he is now president for life with no successor in sight, things are bound to be very chaotic when he passes. Thankfully Chinese presidents seem to live a long time (Jiang just passed away a few months ago).
- fluxinflex 4y ago
  I think the point is that China is not exactly predictable in terms of geopolitical aims. Meaning that we start depending more on China, then Taiwan could become the next Ukraine and western economies will be looking for the next cheap place to invest in. If BASF is diversifying then perhaps into more Western-oriented places - wherever these might be.
  - ElectricalUnion 4y ago
    > Meaning that we start depending more on China, then Taiwan could become the next Ukraine and western economies will be looking for the next cheap place to invest in. Well, it's the USA fault that they're more unpredictable now. They reduced one of China's most important trade partners into "just a rebel island near you that only trades with the western world". China also used to depend on Taiwan for semiconductors and advanced manufacturing. Then the USA cuts them from buying Taiwan semiconductors and advanced manufacturing. The decision for a future invasion went from "economically undesirable" to "strategically easy" - if I can't have it, and the USA have it, the USA might as well not have and not use it. "Taiwan could become the next Ukraine" seems to imply that they would want to capture the island with infantry; but no such thing is necessary - for tactic/strategic reasons is would be better to deny the USA (and possibly the inhabitants of Taiwan) from ever using Taiwan again by removing the isle advanced manufaturing instalations, logistic and military infrastructre from the map.
    - greenyoda 4y ago
      > Well, it's the USA fault that they're more unpredictable now. They reduced one of China's most important trade partners into "just a rebel island near you that only trades with the western world". There's definitely still a significant economic relationship between China and Taiwan. For example, one of the biggest companies operating in China, Foxconn (which makes iPhones), is Taiwanese: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn Taiwan Semiconductor (TSMC) is a major supplier of chips for iPhones, so presumably these chips are being imported into China: https://bgr.com/tech/apple-orders-all-of-tsmcs-3nm-chip-supply-for-iphone-15-pro-m3-macs/ https://bgr.com/tech/apple-orders-all-of-tsmcs-3nm-chip-supp...
- mschuster91 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 4y ago
    Nationalistic flamewar will get you banned here. Please don't post like this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
323 4y ago
The directors which decided to rely on Russia got millions in bonuses. Just like the ones which pivot now to China will. Classic incentive duration mismatch. Short term bonuses vs long term profits.
kzrdude 4y ago
wouldn't you say that's the opposite of ironic? It just seems like it's straight in line.
varispeed 4y ago
They got away with Zyklon B, they can get away with anything.
mschuster91 4y ago
> Rising energy costs are only half the truth. "BASF to Cut 2,600 Jobs after losing 2 billions in Russian investments " could be the other headline. ... and still has enough money left over to pay dividends. Mass layoffs should be banned as long as a company still has money left to pay shareholders. Having rank-and-file employees suffer the first for corporate misgovernance instead of the shareholders who failed in their duty to keep corporate leadership accountable is disgusting.
- droopyEyelids 4y ago
  This is an interesting concept, really the direct opposite of how ownership of the company works (in america at least) It would make a lot of sense in a worker owned business.
- gruez 4y ago
  >Mass layoffs should be banned as long as a company still has money left to pay shareholders. Having rank-and-file employees suffer the first for corporate misgovernance instead of the shareholders who failed in their duty to keep corporate leadership accountable is disgusting. That works well until companies refuse to hire (or become much more conservative in hiring) because every employee is now a liability. There's no free lunches here. Your proposal is just a roundabout way of taxing profitable corporations and making the labor market less efficient in the process.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    > That works well until companies refuse to hire (or become much more conservative in hiring) because every employee is now a liability. Cry me a river is all I can say to companies thinking that way. Someone has to do the work after all, and demographics will only make the problem of a lack of workers worse. And for what it's worth, companies in countries with extremely strict labor laws like France don't really have a problem either. In the end it's the classical "corporate whining" meme.
    - gruez 4y ago

slater 4y ago

*losing

ChemSpider 4y ago
Fixed, thanks ;-)

est31 4y ago

The confiscations hurt but the job cuts are also a future-looking statement: they think that Germany is a less useful place now for basing their production due to the higher energy costs. This trend is visible in many industries, but of course it's more pronounced in the energy intensive sectors. > Hey, look, China! Let's invest another 10 billion there. China is a rapidly growing economy. Where else should they invest? Also note, that unlike Russia even before the war, it's also the biggest trading partner of the USA. The USA was able to profit from the Ukraine war so much because they didn't have any relevant trading relationships with Russia, so it was easy for them to demand sanctions. But if there should ever be a time where China does something that requires sanctions, then the USA will feel it a lot. So it's a different situation here. Ultimately, if there is trade then there is also a common benefit. Russia brought cheap gas to europe, which was really great for the european economy.

ChemSpider 4y ago
Nothing wrong with some investments in China. But there is a difference between "investing" and making the "largest investment ever". Basically their are betting half the company that China does not attack Taiwan and/or does not ship weapons to Russia and/or does not give them the "Jack Ma" treatment. Quite risky, if you ask me.
- ReptileMan 4y ago
  >Basically their are betting half the company that China does not attack Taiwan and/or does not ship weapons to Russia and/or does not give them the "Jack Ma" treatment. Quite risky, if you ask me. If china attacks Taiwan Europe will react the same way Asia reacted to Russia in Ukraine - with a shrug. Too far away to really care.
  - phatfish 4y ago
    I suspect it will be more than a "shrug". When the TSMC chip production drops off a cliff European manufacturing will be affected as much as anywhere else. It will have more affect than Russia cutting the gas off. With Gas there was existing storage capacity and after 6 months Norway and LNG were there to replace Russian supplies. Sure it cost more but it is out there to be bought internationally. Germany won't be shipping in tanker loads of chips from Qatar, the manufacturing capacity just doesn't exist. This is why Europe and America have woken up to microchip fabrication issue. The capacity to cover being cut off from TSMC fabs wont be online in Europe for many years.
  - oytis 4y ago
    I would expect Europe to follow the US here. If US does nothing, truly Europe couldn't care less. If US is at war with China, I can't imagine Europe doing business as usual.
alexpetralia 4y ago
For the uninformed (myself), how is the U.S. profiting from the war in Ukraine? I suspect it would be from financing and selling military equipment to Ukraine and allies?
- fluxinflex 4y ago
  America is - perhaps - profiting geopolitically. Had the European Union and Russia come closer together then that block would represent a block - financially seen - which would be larger than America.
  - joakleaf 4y ago
    At least based on GDP, Russia's economy would not have added much to EU's economy: USA GDP 2021: 23315 Billion USD EU GDP 2021: 17177 Billion USD (~10x Russia) Russia GDP 2021: 1775 Billion USD https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gdp?continent=world https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gdp?continent=worl...
- jamil7 4y ago
  Selling energy to countries that can no longer buy Russian energy.
- ericmay 4y ago
  You can largely ignore comments like that because they aren't useful and are generally conspiratorial without substance. Equally you could say China and India are profiting from the war and are incentivized to continue to abstain and not add pressure to Russia to end the war because they are profiting off of cheap oil imports from Russia. So what I'd say, because the inevitable response is some grand conspiracy about American natural gas companies "wanting the European market", is that anytime someone complains or tries to complain about American natural gas companies just remind them that everyone in the world including China and India are in the same grand conspiracy to pillage Russia. If you believe that American oil and gas companies are so powerful as to cause the war in Ukraine, then you should just submit to their sublime and all-knowing global dominance because it's such as masterstroke and clear display of power that you have no hope of affecting change and should just get along and enjoy your day-to-day. Or, you can understand the more simple truth which is that Putin is butthurt about the end of the Cold War and literally thinks that he should recreate the Russian empire but he and the Russian state apparatus misjudged the war and how NATO and western-allied countries such as South Korea, Japan, and others would respond.
oytis 4y ago
> China is a rapidly growing economy. Where else should they invest? Like, some place they would like to be rapidly growing instead of China? Also some place that we don't expect to be at war with in the next few years?
- this_user 4y ago
  So you are suggesting that there is a large selection of such places available?
- nivenkos 4y ago
  You really expect us to be at war with China?
  - oytis 4y ago
    There is a decent chance of it I think yes. Maybe not exactly a direct war, more like the current relationships between EU/US and Russia. China's politics now has some similarities to that of Putin - they've entered a vicious circle of being self-convinced by their own propaganda. And propaganda says Taiwan should belong to China even if it means war. I'm not an expect in China though, but wouldn't put any of my own money on China now.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    A 10% chance while Xi is president. Also, since he is now president for life with no successor in sight, things are bound to be very chaotic when he passes. Thankfully Chinese presidents seem to live a long time (Jiang just passed away a few months ago).
fluxinflex 4y ago
I think the point is that China is not exactly predictable in terms of geopolitical aims. Meaning that we start depending more on China, then Taiwan could become the next Ukraine and western economies will be looking for the next cheap place to invest in. If BASF is diversifying then perhaps into more Western-oriented places - wherever these might be.
- ElectricalUnion 4y ago
  > Meaning that we start depending more on China, then Taiwan could become the next Ukraine and western economies will be looking for the next cheap place to invest in. Well, it's the USA fault that they're more unpredictable now. They reduced one of China's most important trade partners into "just a rebel island near you that only trades with the western world". China also used to depend on Taiwan for semiconductors and advanced manufacturing. Then the USA cuts them from buying Taiwan semiconductors and advanced manufacturing. The decision for a future invasion went from "economically undesirable" to "strategically easy" - if I can't have it, and the USA have it, the USA might as well not have and not use it. "Taiwan could become the next Ukraine" seems to imply that they would want to capture the island with infantry; but no such thing is necessary - for tactic/strategic reasons is would be better to deny the USA (and possibly the inhabitants of Taiwan) from ever using Taiwan again by removing the isle advanced manufaturing instalations, logistic and military infrastructre from the map.
  - greenyoda 4y ago
    > Well, it's the USA fault that they're more unpredictable now. They reduced one of China's most important trade partners into "just a rebel island near you that only trades with the western world". There's definitely still a significant economic relationship between China and Taiwan. For example, one of the biggest companies operating in China, Foxconn (which makes iPhones), is Taiwanese: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn Taiwan Semiconductor (TSMC) is a major supplier of chips for iPhones, so presumably these chips are being imported into China: https://bgr.com/tech/apple-orders-all-of-tsmcs-3nm-chip-supply-for-iphone-15-pro-m3-macs/ https://bgr.com/tech/apple-orders-all-of-tsmcs-3nm-chip-supp...
mschuster91 4y ago
[flagged]
- dang 4y ago
  Nationalistic flamewar will get you banned here. Please don't post like this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

323 4y ago

The directors which decided to rely on Russia got millions in bonuses. Just like the ones which pivot now to China will. Classic incentive duration mismatch. Short term bonuses vs long term profits.

kzrdude 4y ago

wouldn't you say that's the opposite of ironic? It just seems like it's straight in line.

varispeed 4y ago

They got away with Zyklon B, they can get away with anything.

mschuster91 4y ago

> Rising energy costs are only half the truth. "BASF to Cut 2,600 Jobs after losing 2 billions in Russian investments " could be the other headline. ... and still has enough money left over to pay dividends. Mass layoffs should be banned as long as a company still has money left to pay shareholders. Having rank-and-file employees suffer the first for corporate misgovernance instead of the shareholders who failed in their duty to keep corporate leadership accountable is disgusting.

droopyEyelids 4y ago
This is an interesting concept, really the direct opposite of how ownership of the company works (in america at least) It would make a lot of sense in a worker owned business.
gruez 4y ago
>Mass layoffs should be banned as long as a company still has money left to pay shareholders. Having rank-and-file employees suffer the first for corporate misgovernance instead of the shareholders who failed in their duty to keep corporate leadership accountable is disgusting. That works well until companies refuse to hire (or become much more conservative in hiring) because every employee is now a liability. There's no free lunches here. Your proposal is just a roundabout way of taxing profitable corporations and making the labor market less efficient in the process.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > That works well until companies refuse to hire (or become much more conservative in hiring) because every employee is now a liability. Cry me a river is all I can say to companies thinking that way. Someone has to do the work after all, and demographics will only make the problem of a lack of workers worse. And for what it's worth, companies in countries with extremely strict labor laws like France don't really have a problem either. In the end it's the classical "corporate whining" meme.
  - gruez 4y ago