6 ms·

I think the US is weaponizing Nvidia under the disguise of security, but it's just trying to squash competition. That sets a bad precedence in my opinion. The w

I think the US is weaponizing Nvidia under the disguise of security, but it's just trying to squash competition. That sets a bad precedence in my opinion. The world will come to rely less on the US products and services. Free markets are less free. International cooperation is harder. It becomes us vs them.

eunos 3y ago
> The world will come to rely less on the US products and services. Thats why I'm kinda rooting for multipolarity in the 1st place!
- 0dayz 3y ago
  Sorry to break it to you but that won't ever be sustainable.
- worrycue 3y ago
  I don’t know. A multipolar world might lead to more wars. A unipolar world isn’t fair but when no one is near-peer with the toughest guy on the block, a fight is unlikely to break out - that toughest guy often plays police too so war among the rest is reduced as well.
  - anonzzzies 3y ago
    Question is if the US should be that police. I think the majority outside will say no; maybe they cannot do anything about it at the moment, but long term they might band more together.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- sparrowInHand 3y ago
  Multipolarity will just result in lawlessness and mutliple US style "invasions" a year. Horray.
- bigfudge 3y ago
  For all that is broken about US democracy, I'd prefer a unipolar world with the US and EU running things than a multipolar world where the current regimes in China (or Russia) have equal standing.
hardware2win 3y ago
I dont understand this free markets thing Gov and ppl in power always influence stuff
- cced 3y ago
  > I dont understand this free markets thing It’s dog whistling for the rentiers. It doesn’t actually exist in the shape that people often think it does. People really think that it’s all about non-government interference within the markets but after 08 and the bajilion other once in a lifetime market meltdowns, I don’t know how anyone can say that this fairytale version of the free market exists. It doesn’t exist and if you’re working class and you think it does you aren’t serving yourself. The free market is one that is free from economic rent.
nxm 3y ago
It’s not “free market”/competition when one country continually steals IP and then produces as its own
- scarmig 3y ago
  Whatever stealing China does, banning exports of certain items to them isn't going to prevent it from happening: enough will get through for it to do any R&D on them it wants and doesn't do anything to prevent corporate espionage.
  - champagnepapi 3y ago
    They can do all the R/D they want, however, they can’t produce on a large scale. Meaning, they won’t have a lot of the same capabilities these chips offer at scale.
  - passwordoops 3y ago
    It doesn't, but it makes it that much more difficult and any barrier, no matter how slight, slows down the effort. And like I mentioned in a comment above, it's the US drawing a line in the sand, signalling to the world you can play nice and continue to have access to US tech, or don't and good luck
    - AlecSchueler 3y ago
      "Playing nice" in this case being adapting to a cultural hegemony. For all my issues with China and it's government I also like to live in a world where different states try out different ways of relating to intellectual property. And will it really take researchers in China that much longer to get a chip? Maybe like a few extra weeks?
      - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
        So you're saying that Chinese having little to no respect for IP is just their culture? And we should respect that? And you think 'a few extra weeks' is all it'll take for the Chinese to develop the technology that ASML has taken several decades to perfect, which is required to produce these chips? I guess if they steal ASML IP, sorry, relate to ASML intellectual property differently, you might be right.
sparrowInHand 3y ago
This is a end of free trade and a return of the old empires, with there embargos and the great games. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Game These empires and there funny little starvations they inflicted carelessly on there provinces (france on africa, england on india, irland) were the reason for WW2. Never again!
- mschuster91 3y ago
  No, the reason for WW2 was Hitler and the OG Nazi regime. The old colonial bullshit had pretty much nothing to do with the causes for WW2. In any case we saw that "change by trade" ("Wandel durch Handel" in German) aka spreading the idea of human rights and democracy by establishing trade zones and routes didn't work out - most of Africa is either failed states, military dictatorships or theocracies, everything in the "Middle East" is either theocracies or on the fringe of becoming one (Israel), the situation in Asia isn't much different. In addition to that, our own democracies are nearing tipping points as well with the rise of the far-right that mostly makes bank by exploiting the destitution that globalization has brought upon our societies where a lot of manufacturing and other industry jobs have been shipped off to Asia. Globalization needs to be turned back. I do not see any valid reason why the money of Western people should be flowing towards countries that actively disrespect our values.
  - sparrowInHand 3y ago
    Harber Bosch was present before WW2. WW2 was mostly fought for Lebensraum, aka place to grow food with medieval methods (no fertilizer) for a industrial sized nation. They could easily have fed all these people, if free trade and fossil fuel imports would have been available and guaranteed. No reason to start the whole war in the first place. But they were not- and could not be relied on if a colonial empire singled you out and cut trade. Thus the war aims, the goals and execution. The existence of the british empire or a similar empire was the precondition for WW2.
dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
You've got it the wrong way around, it's already 'us vs them' due to 'them' attempting to seize large swathes of other countries water rights, land, invading and threatening to invade key US allies, using trade to coerce countries, manipulating poor and vulnerable countries for military purposes, and generally increasing military aggressiveness. The 'free markets' idealism is at best naive. Making money by arming your adversary (see above) doesn't make much sense. Your first sentence happens to correspond to Chinese propaganda but that's surely a coincidence.
- ExoticPearTree 3y ago
  > You've got it the wrong way around, it's already 'us vs them' due to 'them' attempting to seize large swathes of other countries water rights, land, invading and threatening to invade key US allies, using trade to coerce countries, manipulating poor and vulnerable countries for military purposes, and generally increasing military aggressiveness. Long story short, the US is upset that China started doing what they were doing for decades. Oh, the irony...
- cced 3y ago
  You guys get that the term ‘free market’ was used to describe markets free from economic rent, right? You guys seriously need some readings in economics in order to understand the position you’re in. You’ve allowed your rentiers to deindustrialize your country to chase profits in the global south. What do you guys think you’re getting for your deindustrialization? Financialization. What does that mean? It means you’re getting, in large part, the benefits from your first paragraph – and associated rents. But yeah, Chinese propaganda and such and such is easier to sell.
  - infamia 3y ago
    > What do you guys think you’re getting for your deindustrialization? It is a myth that the U.S. has deindustrialized. The value of manufactured goods in the US has markedly increased over the decades. It has only ever dropped significantly during recessions. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SLMNTO02USA189N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SLMNTO02USA189N

eunos 3y ago

> The world will come to rely less on the US products and services. Thats why I'm kinda rooting for multipolarity in the 1st place!

0dayz 3y ago
Sorry to break it to you but that won't ever be sustainable.
worrycue 3y ago
I don’t know. A multipolar world might lead to more wars. A unipolar world isn’t fair but when no one is near-peer with the toughest guy on the block, a fight is unlikely to break out - that toughest guy often plays police too so war among the rest is reduced as well.
- anonzzzies 3y ago
  Question is if the US should be that police. I think the majority outside will say no; maybe they cannot do anything about it at the moment, but long term they might band more together.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
sparrowInHand 3y ago
Multipolarity will just result in lawlessness and mutliple US style "invasions" a year. Horray.
bigfudge 3y ago
For all that is broken about US democracy, I'd prefer a unipolar world with the US and EU running things than a multipolar world where the current regimes in China (or Russia) have equal standing.

hardware2win 3y ago

I dont understand this free markets thing Gov and ppl in power always influence stuff

cced 3y ago
> I dont understand this free markets thing It’s dog whistling for the rentiers. It doesn’t actually exist in the shape that people often think it does. People really think that it’s all about non-government interference within the markets but after 08 and the bajilion other once in a lifetime market meltdowns, I don’t know how anyone can say that this fairytale version of the free market exists. It doesn’t exist and if you’re working class and you think it does you aren’t serving yourself. The free market is one that is free from economic rent.

nxm 3y ago

It’s not “free market”/competition when one country continually steals IP and then produces as its own

scarmig 3y ago
Whatever stealing China does, banning exports of certain items to them isn't going to prevent it from happening: enough will get through for it to do any R&D on them it wants and doesn't do anything to prevent corporate espionage.
- champagnepapi 3y ago
  They can do all the R/D they want, however, they can’t produce on a large scale. Meaning, they won’t have a lot of the same capabilities these chips offer at scale.
- passwordoops 3y ago
  It doesn't, but it makes it that much more difficult and any barrier, no matter how slight, slows down the effort. And like I mentioned in a comment above, it's the US drawing a line in the sand, signalling to the world you can play nice and continue to have access to US tech, or don't and good luck
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    "Playing nice" in this case being adapting to a cultural hegemony. For all my issues with China and it's government I also like to live in a world where different states try out different ways of relating to intellectual property. And will it really take researchers in China that much longer to get a chip? Maybe like a few extra weeks?
    - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
      So you're saying that Chinese having little to no respect for IP is just their culture? And we should respect that? And you think 'a few extra weeks' is all it'll take for the Chinese to develop the technology that ASML has taken several decades to perfect, which is required to produce these chips? I guess if they steal ASML IP, sorry, relate to ASML intellectual property differently, you might be right.

sparrowInHand 3y ago

This is a end of free trade and a return of the old empires, with there embargos and the great games. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Game These empires and there funny little starvations they inflicted carelessly on there provinces (france on africa, england on india, irland) were the reason for WW2. Never again!

mschuster91 3y ago
No, the reason for WW2 was Hitler and the OG Nazi regime. The old colonial bullshit had pretty much nothing to do with the causes for WW2. In any case we saw that "change by trade" ("Wandel durch Handel" in German) aka spreading the idea of human rights and democracy by establishing trade zones and routes didn't work out - most of Africa is either failed states, military dictatorships or theocracies, everything in the "Middle East" is either theocracies or on the fringe of becoming one (Israel), the situation in Asia isn't much different. In addition to that, our own democracies are nearing tipping points as well with the rise of the far-right that mostly makes bank by exploiting the destitution that globalization has brought upon our societies where a lot of manufacturing and other industry jobs have been shipped off to Asia. Globalization needs to be turned back. I do not see any valid reason why the money of Western people should be flowing towards countries that actively disrespect our values.
- sparrowInHand 3y ago
  Harber Bosch was present before WW2. WW2 was mostly fought for Lebensraum, aka place to grow food with medieval methods (no fertilizer) for a industrial sized nation. They could easily have fed all these people, if free trade and fossil fuel imports would have been available and guaranteed. No reason to start the whole war in the first place. But they were not- and could not be relied on if a colonial empire singled you out and cut trade. Thus the war aims, the goals and execution. The existence of the british empire or a similar empire was the precondition for WW2.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago

You've got it the wrong way around, it's already 'us vs them' due to 'them' attempting to seize large swathes of other countries water rights, land, invading and threatening to invade key US allies, using trade to coerce countries, manipulating poor and vulnerable countries for military purposes, and generally increasing military aggressiveness. The 'free markets' idealism is at best naive. Making money by arming your adversary (see above) doesn't make much sense. Your first sentence happens to correspond to Chinese propaganda but that's surely a coincidence.

ExoticPearTree 3y ago
> You've got it the wrong way around, it's already 'us vs them' due to 'them' attempting to seize large swathes of other countries water rights, land, invading and threatening to invade key US allies, using trade to coerce countries, manipulating poor and vulnerable countries for military purposes, and generally increasing military aggressiveness. Long story short, the US is upset that China started doing what they were doing for decades. Oh, the irony...
cced 3y ago
You guys get that the term ‘free market’ was used to describe markets free from economic rent, right? You guys seriously need some readings in economics in order to understand the position you’re in. You’ve allowed your rentiers to deindustrialize your country to chase profits in the global south. What do you guys think you’re getting for your deindustrialization? Financialization. What does that mean? It means you’re getting, in large part, the benefits from your first paragraph – and associated rents. But yeah, Chinese propaganda and such and such is easier to sell.
- infamia 3y ago
  > What do you guys think you’re getting for your deindustrialization? It is a myth that the U.S. has deindustrialized. The value of manufactured goods in the US has markedly increased over the decades. It has only ever dropped significantly during recessions. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SLMNTO02USA189N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SLMNTO02USA189N