4 ms·

I do not think you can dismiss the national security element. There is wide spread recognition now that China controls too many aspects of supply chain, and tha

I do not think you can dismiss the national security element. There is wide spread recognition now that China controls too many aspects of supply chain, and that they are willing to use that as leverage to achieve geopolitical objectives. Getting out from under that influence is seen as a top priority by natsec. Moreover, cementing control over high-end chips production is a) securing our own levers, but also reducing future dependence that could arise. Also, the CHIPS act targets high end chips because advanced chips are critical to developing AI. AI superiority has major economic implications which can roll into security implications, but more directly, AI will power modern military weapon systems, want it or not, those are coming.

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
> There is wide spread recognition now that China controls too many aspects of supply chain, and that they are willing to use that as leverage to achieve geopolitical objectives. When it comes to semiconductors, it's the exact opposite. The US controls the supply chain, and is weaponizing that control to a far greater extent than China has ever done with any sector. If US policy were simply about reducing the US' own dependencies, the US would not be trying to drive Chinese semiconductor companies out of business with sanctions. US policy is about crippling the Chinese semiconductor industry, in order to be able to apply pressure on China on a whole range of other political and strategic issues. Here's how the Brookings Institution study ends: > If SME export controls successfully reduce China's chip fab capacity, the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea — the only remaining economies with significant near-state-of-the-art chip fab capacity — could coordinate on further, targeted end-use and end-user controls to advance the cause of human rights and global stability. The plan is to make China entirely dependent on the US and its allies, and then to turn the screws to force China to make concessions on other issues. This is exactly the sort of supply-chain weaponization the US says China might theoretically engage in in the future.
- SubiculumCode 3y ago
  I think the world is better off in the world where the U.S. leads than in one in which China leads. Yes, the U.S. has turned sour on China, and for good reasons. China has turned away from liberalization, cementing one ruler for life while "anti-corruption" campaigns removed his political rivals. We tired of how our economy was playing by rules that the Chinese were not including massive protectionist subsidies, inappropriate currency peg that prevent American companies from competing, one-sided requirements to give IP or trade.secrets to China in order to enter their market, (which affects our US economy particularly as it is highly dependent IP dependent), increasing aggressive Chinese nationlism and anti-American rhetoric in the Party, massive IP theft from hacking, or straight up counterfeiting, with little done to curb it, the high rate of forced labor, state sponsored industrial espionage at scale, pervasive and horrific.human rights abuses at home, the fall of Hong Kong!!!, and the rising threats to Taiwan. And lest you think economic decoupling is at the behest of U.S. war policy, its because corporations have independently decided that China is too risky, because of all the things mentioned above, and because covid taught the value of diversification of risks. Need I really go on? You consistently defend China and implicate US as being the aggressor, but I think its mostly the opposite: The U.S. had ignored Chinese aggressions for too long because the good were cheap and because there was the dream that integration would bring mutual liberalization.
  - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
    > We tired of how our economy was playing by rules that the Chinese were not including massive protectionist subsidies, inappropriate currency peg that prevent American companies from competing, one-sided requirements to give IP or trade.secrets to China in order to enter their market, (which affects our US economy particularly as it is highly dependent IP dependent), increasing aggressive Chinese nationlism and anti-American rhetoric in the Party, massive IP theft from hacking, or straight up counterfeiting, with little done to curb it, the high rate of forced labor Almost none of this is true, or at least is extremely exaggerated. Your basic picture of China is completely wrong. First off, American companies have done extremely well in China over the last few decades. Given your litany of supposed problems, you'd never know that American companies dominate large chunks of the Chinese market and have made massive profits in China. The IP issues you raise are massively overblown. Yes, there were regulations in the past that required some level of IP sharing to enter some parts of the Chinese economy. These requirements were not that onerous, and many foreign companies made the rational and correct calculation that transferring a small amount of IP was worth it in order to access the large Chinese labor pool and market. Companies like Volkswagen did extremely well despite IP transfer, because that transfer was minor, and their investments in China were very lucrative. From the Chinese point of view, putting some conditions on foreign investment made sense. China was an undeveloped, mostly agricultural country that was just beginning to let in foreign corporate giants. China gave them access to a giant pool of cheap labor in exchange for some IP transfer. I don't see how that's morally wrong. On counterfeiting, this is something that happens in every underdeveloped economy. It's extremely difficult to prevent every little corner shop from making counterfeit goods, especially when the country has much more pressing problems to deal with (like much of the population not having access to running water or electricity). However, as China has developed, it has cracked down on counterfeit goods, and they're much less common than they used to be. I don't think China is worse in this regard than other countries at a similar level of economic development. About the supposed high rate of forced labor, I don't know where you're getting your statistics. China is not even a low-wage country any more (salaries are higher than in Mexico, for example). However, there have been plenty of evidence-free accusations of forced labor in Western media, ironically discussing Chinese programs designed to provide higher-paying jobs to the rural poor. > The U.S. had ignored Chinese aggressions for too long because the good were cheap and because there was the dream that integration would bring mutual liberalization. These supposed "Chinese aggressions" you're raising were extremely lucrative for the United States, and were responsible for a large fraction of American economic growth over the last few decades. The reason the US is freaking out right now is because Americans have realized that China is becoming a peer power. The very existence of a peer threatens the entire American political self-image. Nothing China could do, short of ceasing to exist or becoming poor again, would appease the US. You hold really extreme views on China, which do not correspond at all to reality. I think you should go visit, and ask yourself if what you see is the horror scenario you had pictured.

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago

> There is wide spread recognition now that China controls too many aspects of supply chain, and that they are willing to use that as leverage to achieve geopolitical objectives. When it comes to semiconductors, it's the exact opposite. The US controls the supply chain, and is weaponizing that control to a far greater extent than China has ever done with any sector. If US policy were simply about reducing the US' own dependencies, the US would not be trying to drive Chinese semiconductor companies out of business with sanctions. US policy is about crippling the Chinese semiconductor industry, in order to be able to apply pressure on China on a whole range of other political and strategic issues. Here's how the Brookings Institution study ends: > If SME export controls successfully reduce China's chip fab capacity, the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea — the only remaining economies with significant near-state-of-the-art chip fab capacity — could coordinate on further, targeted end-use and end-user controls to advance the cause of human rights and global stability. The plan is to make China entirely dependent on the US and its allies, and then to turn the screws to force China to make concessions on other issues. This is exactly the sort of supply-chain weaponization the US says China might theoretically engage in in the future.

SubiculumCode 3y ago
I think the world is better off in the world where the U.S. leads than in one in which China leads. Yes, the U.S. has turned sour on China, and for good reasons. China has turned away from liberalization, cementing one ruler for life while "anti-corruption" campaigns removed his political rivals. We tired of how our economy was playing by rules that the Chinese were not including massive protectionist subsidies, inappropriate currency peg that prevent American companies from competing, one-sided requirements to give IP or trade.secrets to China in order to enter their market, (which affects our US economy particularly as it is highly dependent IP dependent), increasing aggressive Chinese nationlism and anti-American rhetoric in the Party, massive IP theft from hacking, or straight up counterfeiting, with little done to curb it, the high rate of forced labor, state sponsored industrial espionage at scale, pervasive and horrific.human rights abuses at home, the fall of Hong Kong!!!, and the rising threats to Taiwan. And lest you think economic decoupling is at the behest of U.S. war policy, its because corporations have independently decided that China is too risky, because of all the things mentioned above, and because covid taught the value of diversification of risks. Need I really go on? You consistently defend China and implicate US as being the aggressor, but I think its mostly the opposite: The U.S. had ignored Chinese aggressions for too long because the good were cheap and because there was the dream that integration would bring mutual liberalization.
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  > We tired of how our economy was playing by rules that the Chinese were not including massive protectionist subsidies, inappropriate currency peg that prevent American companies from competing, one-sided requirements to give IP or trade.secrets to China in order to enter their market, (which affects our US economy particularly as it is highly dependent IP dependent), increasing aggressive Chinese nationlism and anti-American rhetoric in the Party, massive IP theft from hacking, or straight up counterfeiting, with little done to curb it, the high rate of forced labor Almost none of this is true, or at least is extremely exaggerated. Your basic picture of China is completely wrong. First off, American companies have done extremely well in China over the last few decades. Given your litany of supposed problems, you'd never know that American companies dominate large chunks of the Chinese market and have made massive profits in China. The IP issues you raise are massively overblown. Yes, there were regulations in the past that required some level of IP sharing to enter some parts of the Chinese economy. These requirements were not that onerous, and many foreign companies made the rational and correct calculation that transferring a small amount of IP was worth it in order to access the large Chinese labor pool and market. Companies like Volkswagen did extremely well despite IP transfer, because that transfer was minor, and their investments in China were very lucrative. From the Chinese point of view, putting some conditions on foreign investment made sense. China was an undeveloped, mostly agricultural country that was just beginning to let in foreign corporate giants. China gave them access to a giant pool of cheap labor in exchange for some IP transfer. I don't see how that's morally wrong. On counterfeiting, this is something that happens in every underdeveloped economy. It's extremely difficult to prevent every little corner shop from making counterfeit goods, especially when the country has much more pressing problems to deal with (like much of the population not having access to running water or electricity). However, as China has developed, it has cracked down on counterfeit goods, and they're much less common than they used to be. I don't think China is worse in this regard than other countries at a similar level of economic development. About the supposed high rate of forced labor, I don't know where you're getting your statistics. China is not even a low-wage country any more (salaries are higher than in Mexico, for example). However, there have been plenty of evidence-free accusations of forced labor in Western media, ironically discussing Chinese programs designed to provide higher-paying jobs to the rural poor. > The U.S. had ignored Chinese aggressions for too long because the good were cheap and because there was the dream that integration would bring mutual liberalization. These supposed "Chinese aggressions" you're raising were extremely lucrative for the United States, and were responsible for a large fraction of American economic growth over the last few decades. The reason the US is freaking out right now is because Americans have realized that China is becoming a peer power. The very existence of a peer threatens the entire American political self-image. Nothing China could do, short of ceasing to exist or becoming poor again, would appease the US. You hold really extreme views on China, which do not correspond at all to reality. I think you should go visit, and ask yourself if what you see is the horror scenario you had pictured.