5 ms·

It's quite peculiar to encounter such simplistic perspectives about the Taiwan situation on this platform. Makes me doubt this platform's main ideology as a who

It's quite peculiar to encounter such simplistic perspectives about the Taiwan situation on this platform. Makes me doubt this platform's main ideology as a whole. As a European, I confess my understanding of the issue is quite rudimentary, yet I'm taken aback by short-sighted projections such as: Suggestions that seem to disregard Taiwan's autonomy over its own affairs, as if U.S. interests can dictate decisions like purchasing all of TSMC and relocating them and their personnel. The assumption that China's primary interest in Taiwan is solely due to TSMC, with claims like 'China will lose interest once TSMC ceases its operations'.

Clubber 3y ago
>Suggestions that seem to disregard Taiwan's autonomy over its own affairs Fair, but this autonomy seems to be tenuous at the moment and grows more so as time passes. You must be aware what the US is willing to do when it comes to national interest. Chips are on par with energy/oil, possibly regarded as even more important economically and militarily. I'm not sure if the US regards Taiwan's fall as inevitable or how they would act if they deemed it so. Regardless, a war over Taiwan would significantly slow chip production. >as if U.S. interests can dictate decisions like purchasing all of TSMC and relocating them and their personnel. I'm sure there will be a carrot and a stick, but if this happens, an offer will be made that TSMC can't refuse. TSMC seems to be more than interested in moving their fabs off Taiwan land, so I don't think this would be necessary. >The assumption that China's primary interest in Taiwan is solely due to TSMC, with claims like 'China will lose interest once TSMC ceases its operations'. Yes you are correct about this. China's current interest in Taiwan goes well beyond TSMC.
- ThalesX 3y ago
  > Fair, but this autonomy seems to be tenuous at the moment and grows more so as time passes. You must be aware what the US is willing to do when it comes to national interest. Chips are on par with energy/oil, possibly regarded as even more important economically and militarily. > I'm sure there will be a carrot and a stick, but if this happens, an offer will be made that TSMC can't refuse. I comprehend this U.S.-centric viewpoint. However, from the perspective of an independent nation state, this narrative sends a cautionary message: 'Beware of creating a product that becomes too integrated into the U.S. supply chain, because you will get rich but risk forfeiting your right to self-determination.' It is somewhat disappointing to see that, on this forum where more nuanced discussions are expected, this is the default (and appreciated) perspective.
  - wslh 3y ago
    Could we say that almost any powerful country will try to protect their critical supply chains with every available mean? This is just plain realpolitik.
    - pphysch 3y ago
      The majority of USA's most critical supply chains come from China proper (PRC), not Taiwan. If this was fundamentally about economic security for the average American, Washington would not jeopardize those with economic and military brinkmanship.
      - wslh 3y ago
        Could you list some of these critical supply components? I mean, TSMC is unique, ASML (Dutch) is more unique. What other unique components does China have? Obviously Apple depends on Foxconn but we can envision that they could be replaced within a 10-year period while TSMC or ASML not. Really curious.
        pphysch 3y ago
        USA imported approximately $537,000,000,000 in goods from China last year. Medical supplies, etc. It's not just about high tech.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - bigredhdl 3y ago
    Couldn't the opposite also be true though? Not having a product that is heavily integrated into the U.S. supply chain means the U.S. may not come to your aid when your neighbor invades.
    - ThalesX 3y ago
      This is very true! Which is why this is a fine balancing act on Taiwan, and not the simplistic 'hurr durr US interests can't allow that'. They need to carefully weight their options, and decide what is best for their nation under the circumstances.
pphysch 3y ago
> It's quite peculiar to encounter such simplistic perspectives about the Taiwan situation on this platform. Makes me doubt this platform's main ideology as a whole. In theory, this platform should be about curious intellectual discussion primarily about tech. In practice, it suffers from upvote-itis which amplifies popular opinions and worldviews and silences others. That's a horrible environment for sharing knowledge about geopolitical issues that span far beyond SV.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- killjoywashere 3y ago
  Fair, but the reasoned pages of Foreign Affairs magazine aren't really better. Spoken as a subscriber.
  - pphysch 3y ago
    I didn't imply the CFR had better takes than HN. The former is really the upstream of the latter, and part of the myopia that I take issue with.
peteradio 3y ago
Don't companies have some autonomy? Why is it unseemly to offer a company a better location?
- pphysch 3y ago
  Because it's not a better location on balance.
  - peteradio 3y ago
    That's an entirely different objection from OP's.
    - pphysch 3y ago
      So is yours. OP used the word "dictate". You transformed it into "offer a better location". And e.g. USA is not a better location for TSMC for a multitude of reasons, so that "offer" wouldn't fly unless it were coercive.
- ThalesX 3y ago
  Of course they do! And it would be totally fine to make an offer. But to purchase an entire strategic sector from a country would warrant some sort of government intervention, no? TSMC getting fully bought out and moved out of Taiwan, as comments suggest, would not be possible without the government's approval, and why would a government approve that if it had its own interest at heart? It's why I was giving the example of EU or China or whatever offering up to buy the entire US military industrial complex. It would be impossible, and not only due to lack of funds.
- bostik 3y ago
  Because transporting any large company from location A to location B involves a lot more than just shipping the machinery. TSMC is the tip of the iceberg, the thing you can see jutting out of the waters. We don't see the invisible - but implicit - support structure that makes the company possible. Freakonomics podcast had a couple of episodes on Taiwan some time ago, and one of the points brought forward was that TSMC is a spearhead. In Taiwan, there is more semiconductor industry, and an established education structure able to produce the ongoing stream of skilled workers at every level. These feed into each other, and TSMC is at the apex of the pyramid. To produce an environment where you could transport TSMC to and have it continue to thrive, you'd likely need to first maintain a strategic focus for something like 15 years to build the necessary support structure. I suspect that China is looking at this, but looks at it from another angle. If they invade Taiwan, they will end up disturbing the support structure that makes TSMC, well, TSMC. The edge of Taiwan's semiconductor industry is not that they have TSMC. Their edge is the entire environment that makes TSMC possible in the first place. Or to be really blunt about it: once the CCP believes they can do without Taiwan's semiconductor industry, they'll send in the troops.
dirtyid 3y ago
Simplistic but more realist. Most TW analysis/commentary are simplistic, but few are realist. TSMC is one of those refreshing topics where even American useful idiots who shill LIO values tend to goes full mask off on realisim because the geopolitical interests involved is so stark. 99% of the time on western platforms, endless paragraphs of ideological propaganda drown out realist narratives. Until it doesn't. Then it's might is right, but frequently expressed in equally simplistic terms. It's not an exclusively HN issue and TBH like half the dumb hot takes are directly from US gov voices and dessminate their way down.
- marssaxman 3y ago
  What are "LIO values"?
  - yowzadave 3y ago
    I'm gonna guess..Liberal International Order?
shitpostbot 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Rapzid 3y ago
> The assumption that China's primary interest in Taiwan is solely due to TSMC, with claims like 'China will lose interest once TSMC ceases its operations'. Whether or not that's its primary interest Taiwan, TSMC is partnering with the US and allies to geographically diversify its most advanced manufacturing. They are taking all the eggs out of one basket so China can't use its proximity to the basket as an advantage through threats or any designs they may have on acquiring the tech they have been unable to produce domestically. Edit: To add a little more flavor. General population are getting more aware of this but they have a surface level understanding of it; mostly memes and soundbites they parrot like "silicon shield". The silicon shield certainly has some merit to an extent but long term this causes more problems than it perhaps solves. The all the eggs in one basket problem: * China knows the world depends on those chips now, and all the most advanced chip manufacturing is sitting right off their coast. This really strengthens their hand in all sorts of ways. * The world does rely on those chips, but the worlds major liberal democracies are unified in their commitment to ensuring this tech remains in-the-family so to speak. They can't destroy the basket because all the eggs are in it and everybody needs the eggs. Another consideration; we were committed to Taiwan's defense before they came to dominate global chip manufacturing. Independent Taiwan is important to the Indo-Pacific strategy. Edit2: I said "all the most advanced chip manufacturing" and that's not true. Intel has all the capability or is right behind perhaps but it does not have the capacity to meet worldwide demand.

Clubber 3y ago

>Suggestions that seem to disregard Taiwan's autonomy over its own affairs Fair, but this autonomy seems to be tenuous at the moment and grows more so as time passes. You must be aware what the US is willing to do when it comes to national interest. Chips are on par with energy/oil, possibly regarded as even more important economically and militarily. I'm not sure if the US regards Taiwan's fall as inevitable or how they would act if they deemed it so. Regardless, a war over Taiwan would significantly slow chip production. >as if U.S. interests can dictate decisions like purchasing all of TSMC and relocating them and their personnel. I'm sure there will be a carrot and a stick, but if this happens, an offer will be made that TSMC can't refuse. TSMC seems to be more than interested in moving their fabs off Taiwan land, so I don't think this would be necessary. >The assumption that China's primary interest in Taiwan is solely due to TSMC, with claims like 'China will lose interest once TSMC ceases its operations'. Yes you are correct about this. China's current interest in Taiwan goes well beyond TSMC.

ThalesX 3y ago
> Fair, but this autonomy seems to be tenuous at the moment and grows more so as time passes. You must be aware what the US is willing to do when it comes to national interest. Chips are on par with energy/oil, possibly regarded as even more important economically and militarily. > I'm sure there will be a carrot and a stick, but if this happens, an offer will be made that TSMC can't refuse. I comprehend this U.S.-centric viewpoint. However, from the perspective of an independent nation state, this narrative sends a cautionary message: 'Beware of creating a product that becomes too integrated into the U.S. supply chain, because you will get rich but risk forfeiting your right to self-determination.' It is somewhat disappointing to see that, on this forum where more nuanced discussions are expected, this is the default (and appreciated) perspective.
- wslh 3y ago
  Could we say that almost any powerful country will try to protect their critical supply chains with every available mean? This is just plain realpolitik.
  - pphysch 3y ago
    The majority of USA's most critical supply chains come from China proper (PRC), not Taiwan. If this was fundamentally about economic security for the average American, Washington would not jeopardize those with economic and military brinkmanship.
    - wslh 3y ago
      Could you list some of these critical supply components? I mean, TSMC is unique, ASML (Dutch) is more unique. What other unique components does China have? Obviously Apple depends on Foxconn but we can envision that they could be replaced within a 10-year period while TSMC or ASML not. Really curious.
      - pphysch 3y ago
        USA imported approximately $537,000,000,000 in goods from China last year. Medical supplies, etc. It's not just about high tech.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- bigredhdl 3y ago
  Couldn't the opposite also be true though? Not having a product that is heavily integrated into the U.S. supply chain means the U.S. may not come to your aid when your neighbor invades.
  - ThalesX 3y ago
    This is very true! Which is why this is a fine balancing act on Taiwan, and not the simplistic 'hurr durr US interests can't allow that'. They need to carefully weight their options, and decide what is best for their nation under the circumstances.

pphysch 3y ago

> It's quite peculiar to encounter such simplistic perspectives about the Taiwan situation on this platform. Makes me doubt this platform's main ideology as a whole. In theory, this platform should be about curious intellectual discussion primarily about tech. In practice, it suffers from upvote-itis which amplifies popular opinions and worldviews and silences others. That's a horrible environment for sharing knowledge about geopolitical issues that span far beyond SV.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
killjoywashere 3y ago
Fair, but the reasoned pages of Foreign Affairs magazine aren't really better. Spoken as a subscriber.
- pphysch 3y ago
  I didn't imply the CFR had better takes than HN. The former is really the upstream of the latter, and part of the myopia that I take issue with.

peteradio 3y ago

Don't companies have some autonomy? Why is it unseemly to offer a company a better location?

pphysch 3y ago
Because it's not a better location on balance.
- peteradio 3y ago
  That's an entirely different objection from OP's.
  - pphysch 3y ago
    So is yours. OP used the word "dictate". You transformed it into "offer a better location". And e.g. USA is not a better location for TSMC for a multitude of reasons, so that "offer" wouldn't fly unless it were coercive.
ThalesX 3y ago
Of course they do! And it would be totally fine to make an offer. But to purchase an entire strategic sector from a country would warrant some sort of government intervention, no? TSMC getting fully bought out and moved out of Taiwan, as comments suggest, would not be possible without the government's approval, and why would a government approve that if it had its own interest at heart? It's why I was giving the example of EU or China or whatever offering up to buy the entire US military industrial complex. It would be impossible, and not only due to lack of funds.
bostik 3y ago
Because transporting any large company from location A to location B involves a lot more than just shipping the machinery. TSMC is the tip of the iceberg, the thing you can see jutting out of the waters. We don't see the invisible - but implicit - support structure that makes the company possible. Freakonomics podcast had a couple of episodes on Taiwan some time ago, and one of the points brought forward was that TSMC is a spearhead. In Taiwan, there is more semiconductor industry, and an established education structure able to produce the ongoing stream of skilled workers at every level. These feed into each other, and TSMC is at the apex of the pyramid. To produce an environment where you could transport TSMC to and have it continue to thrive, you'd likely need to first maintain a strategic focus for something like 15 years to build the necessary support structure. I suspect that China is looking at this, but looks at it from another angle. If they invade Taiwan, they will end up disturbing the support structure that makes TSMC, well, TSMC. The edge of Taiwan's semiconductor industry is not that they have TSMC. Their edge is the entire environment that makes TSMC possible in the first place. Or to be really blunt about it: once the CCP believes they can do without Taiwan's semiconductor industry, they'll send in the troops.

dirtyid 3y ago

Simplistic but more realist. Most TW analysis/commentary are simplistic, but few are realist. TSMC is one of those refreshing topics where even American useful idiots who shill LIO values tend to goes full mask off on realisim because the geopolitical interests involved is so stark. 99% of the time on western platforms, endless paragraphs of ideological propaganda drown out realist narratives. Until it doesn't. Then it's might is right, but frequently expressed in equally simplistic terms. It's not an exclusively HN issue and TBH like half the dumb hot takes are directly from US gov voices and dessminate their way down.

marssaxman 3y ago
What are "LIO values"?
- yowzadave 3y ago
  I'm gonna guess..Liberal International Order?

shitpostbot 3y ago

[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Rapzid 3y ago

> The assumption that China's primary interest in Taiwan is solely due to TSMC, with claims like 'China will lose interest once TSMC ceases its operations'. Whether or not that's its primary interest Taiwan, TSMC is partnering with the US and allies to geographically diversify its most advanced manufacturing. They are taking all the eggs out of one basket so China can't use its proximity to the basket as an advantage through threats or any designs they may have on acquiring the tech they have been unable to produce domestically. Edit: To add a little more flavor. General population are getting more aware of this but they have a surface level understanding of it; mostly memes and soundbites they parrot like "silicon shield". The silicon shield certainly has some merit to an extent but long term this causes more problems than it perhaps solves. The all the eggs in one basket problem: * China knows the world depends on those chips now, and all the most advanced chip manufacturing is sitting right off their coast. This really strengthens their hand in all sorts of ways. * The world does rely on those chips, but the worlds major liberal democracies are unified in their commitment to ensuring this tech remains in-the-family so to speak. They can't destroy the basket because all the eggs are in it and everybody needs the eggs. Another consideration; we were committed to Taiwan's defense before they came to dominate global chip manufacturing. Independent Taiwan is important to the Indo-Pacific strategy. Edit2: I said "all the most advanced chip manufacturing" and that's not true. Intel has all the capability or is right behind perhaps but it does not have the capacity to meet worldwide demand.